C-ir 


^2 


REESE    LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA, 

Received. .C^^^te^  ../^A' -^ 

Acassions  No.^Si  i../3-J       Shelf  No 


e^- 


-8$ 


c 


^.v 


> 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofresurrOOIandrich 


THE 


D  0  C  T  E I N  E 


RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED ; 


IN    ANSWER    TO   THE    EXCEPTIONS    RECENTLY    PRESENTED    BY 

REV.  GEORGE  BUSH, 

PROFESSOR    OF    HEBREW,  NEW    YORK  CITY    DNIVERSITY. 


By  ROBERT  VV.  LANDIS, 


>iv  Tin;  iTroLyyikko/Atvciij  Trt^t  tinmjtglj^i^^ff/ig^.  Paul. 


Qiiidoani  silil  saxa  cavatii.  ■^^ 

luid  pulchrii  vulunt  monumenta^V 
rjst^iiod  res  credit irr  illis  \ 

fonmortua,  setl  data  somno.— Pjiui>»ntius. 

PHILTdYlThTa: 
perkins  &  purves,  142  chestnut  street. 

BOSTOiN:— BENJAMIN  PF.RKINS  &  Co. 
1846. 


/.3 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1846,  by 

PERKINS  &  PURVES, 

in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District 


^Pa^^ia^_^^ 


.^■ 


ADVERTISE3IENT. 


The  work  here  submitted  to  the  public,  was  ready  for  the 
press  in  March  last.  But  soon  after  preparing  it,  the  author 
learned  from  Professor  Bush  that  he  was  about  to  issue  other 
works  in  defence  of  the  positions  assumed  in  the  Anastasis: 
and  therefore  concluded  to  delay  the  publication  until  he 
should  have  an  opportunity  to  consider  them.  In  conse- 
quence, however,  of  a  severe  and  protracted  illness,  he  could 
not  do  this  until  late  in  the  fall:  when,  upon  perusing  the 
works  referred  to,  he  found  nothing  that  required  any  formal 
distinct  notice  whatever.  They  contain  little  else  than  repe- 
titions of  what  is  asserted  in  the  Anastasis. 

With  regard  to  the  style  of  the  present  work,  the  author 
would  say  that  he  has  aimed  only  at  clearness  and  brevity: 
for  he  cannot  see  that  in  the  estimation  of  thinking  minds, 
his  argument  would  derive  any  advantage  from  being  ex- 
pressed in  a  strain  of  fervid  declamation,  and  in  beautifully 
rounded  and  polished  periods.  In  aiming  at  clearness,  how- 
ever, he  has  endeavoured  to  express  himself  not  only  so  as 
to  be  understood,  but  so  as  not  to  be  misunderstood.  In  doing 
this,  he  is  aware  that  he  has  sometimes  repeated  the  same  word 
or  phrase  (even  in  close  connexion)  rather  oflener  than  either 
the  Roman  or  Scottish  rhetorician  would  have  sanctioned. 

In  consequence  of  the  author's  distance  from  Philadelphia, 
(and  the  uncertainty  o^  the  transmission  by  mail,  especially 
in  the  winter,)  his  friend,  Dr.  E.  S.  Ely,  kindly  consented  to 
assist  him  in  the  labour  of  revising  the  proofs,  for  which  favour 
he  would  take  the  present  opportunity  of  expressing  his  obliga- 
tions and  gratitude.  And  in  looking  over  the  sheets  (which 
are  printed  with  singular  accuracy),  the  author  has  discovered 
no  errata  which  need  be  specified,  save  that  on  p.  59,  in 
stating  a  hypothetical  case  he  remarked  that  «in-»  in  Gen.  i.  2, 
was  used  in  the  hithpael,  when  he  should  have  said  pieZ  ; 
and  on  p.  184,  '^xv  ^^  "^^^  ^^^  •^xf'xo?  in  one  instance,  and 
•\'vxt'x6s  also  for  -^vxixov.  Other  errata  will  doubtless  be  dis- 
covered; but  he  is  assured  that  those  (at  least)  of  his  brethren 


4  ADVERTISEMENT. 

who  are  engaged  in  the  arduous  duties  of  the  gospel  ministry, 
will  know  how  to  palliate  them. 

The  author  hopes  that  the  reader  will  excuse  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Hebrew  character,  as  also  the  absence  of  the 
paints  in  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  He- 
brew and  Greek  originals  have  been  also  generally  excluded, 
as  well  as  those  of  the  Latin  and  German,  from  a  desire  that 
the  present  volume  should  not  in  bulk  exceed  that  of  Profes- 
sor Bush. 

The  author,  in  justice  to  himself,  ought  also,  perhaps,  here 
to  state  why  he  has  not  noticed  more  specifically  the  construc- 
tion of  Job  xix.  25-27,  which  is  presented  in  the  late  excel- 
lent work  of  Mr.  Barnes.  He  had  endeavoured,  by  sending 
to  New  York  soon  after  the  work  was  announced,  to  procure 
a  copy  of  it,  but  in  vain ;  and  was  therefore  compelled  to 
proceed  without  it.  But  he  finds,  however,  that  he  has  antici- 
pated and  replied  to  every  thing  offered  by  Mr.  Barnes  against 
the  ordinary  rendering  of  that  celebrated  passage. 

While  the  Anastasis  was  passing  through  the  press,  Pro- 
fessor Bush  politely  transmitted  to  the  author  the  sheets  con- 
taining the  more  important  branches  of  the  argument.  These 
he  perused  with  deep  interest,  and  with  a  strong  impression  that 
the  Professor's  book  required  to  be  promptly  met  and  answered. 
And  being  satisfied  that  its  principles,  if  received,  would  be 
most  pernicious  in  their  influence  upon  American  theology, 
he  concluded  to  put  down  his  thoughts  upon  the  subject  while 
it  was  fully  before  his  mind ;  and  if,  in  the  meantime,  no  reply 
should  appear,  to  give  them  to  the  public.  The  labour  of 
doing  so,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  arduous  duties  of  an 
extensive  pastoral  charge,  has  been  greater  than  he  antici- 
pated; but  as  no  reply  to  the  Professor  has  appeared,  occu- 
pying the  ground  herein  occupied,  he  hopes  that  his  labour 
has  not  been  altogether  in  vain. 

Having  prepared  his  little  volume  in  the  humble  hope  that 
it  may  tend  somewhat  to  counteract  the  errors  which  it  con- 
troverts, the  author,  in  submitting  it  to  the  public,  earnestly 
commends  it  to  the  blessing  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
(without  whose  favour  all  our  efforts  are  vain!)  with  the  fer- 
vent prayer  also  that  both  the  writer  and  reader  may  be 
guided  into  the  saving  knowledge  of  all  essential  truth. 

Sidney,  New  Jersey,  March  13,  1846. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introduction 7 

PART  I. 

CONTAINING  A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION,  AND 
OF  PROFESSOR  BUSH's  THEORY ;  TOGETHER  WITH  A  CONSIDERATION  OF 
HIS  "  ARGUMENT  FROM  REASON." 

Chapter  I. — The  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body 

stated 13 

Chapter  II. — A  brief  view  of  Professor  Bush's  theory  of  the 
Resurrection,  and  of  its  correlative  doctrines,  as 

stated  by  himself. 17 

Section  ii. — History  of  Professor  Bush's  theory 26 

Chapter  III. — The  "  Argument  from  Reason"  considered.. . .       36 

Section  i. — Introduction 36 

Section  ii. — "  Argument  from  Reason"  stated 42 

Section  hi. — Condition  of  the  "  Argument  from  Reason."       48 
Section  iv. — The  theory  of  Professor  Bush  derives  little 
or  no  support  from  his  "  Argument  from 
Reason,"  even  admitting  its  premises  and 

conclusion 49 

Section  v. — The  "  Argument  from  Reason"  cannot  be 

relied  on 50 

Chapter  IV. — A  consideration  of  Chapters  II.  and  III.  of  the 

"  Anastasis." 61 

Chapter  V. — Professor  Bush's  "  Objections  from  Reason"  con- 
sidered        74 

Chapter  VI. — The  true  office  of  reason,  in  respect  to  revealed 

religion 96 

PART  II. 

professor  bush's  remarks  on  the  scriptural  argument  considered. 

Chapter  I. — The  principle  of  interpretation  advocated  in  the 

Anastasis 107 

Section  ii. — The  view  entertained  of  it  by  the  evangelical 

party  in  Germany 118 

Section  hi. — A  brief  history  of  this  principle 120 

Section  iv. — Objections  to  the  principle 125 

Section  v. — True  principles  of  interpretation 130 

Chapter  II. — A  consideration  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of 
the  Resurrection,  as  presented  and  discussed  by 
Professor  Bush 1 32 

I.  Consideration  of  Genesis  xvii.  7,  8 137 

II.  "  Job  xix.  25-27 140 

1* 


6  .  CONTENTS. 

\  Page 

III.  "                 Psalmxvi.9, 10 152 

IV.  «                       "       xvii.  15 152 

V.  "                Isaiah  xxv.  7,  8 153 

VI.  "                     "      xxvi.  19 157 

VII.  "                Ezekiel  xxxvii.  1-14 158 

VIII.  "                Hosea  vi.  2 161 

IX.  "                    «      xiii.  14 161 

X.  "                Daniel  xii.  2 163 

Chapter  III. — The  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion   168 

Section  i. — Preliminary  remarks 168 

Section  ii. — Definition  of  terms 170 

Section  hi. — Examination  of  passages  in  1  Corinthians.  188 

I.  Consideration  of  1  Corinthians  xv.  12, 13 188 

II.  "                           "            "    16-18 194 

III.  "                            "            "    20-23 197 

IV.  "                            «'            "    35-37 204 

V.  "                           "            "    38-41 211 

VI.  «                           "            "    42-44 214 

VII.  "                           «            "    50-53 225 

Section  iv. — Examination  of  passages  in  Matthew 244 

I.  Consideration  of  Matthew  v.  29,  30 244 

II.  "                        "        X.  28 250 

III.  "                        "        xxii.  31,32 253 

IV.  "                        "        xxvii.  50— 53 260 

Section  v. — Passages  in  John's  Gospel 264 

I.— Consideration  of  John  v.  28,  29 264 

II.  "                   "      vi.  39,  40 268 

III.  «                   "      xi.  21-26 273 

Section  vi. — Passages  in  Acts 278 

I. — Consideration  of  Acts  ii.  29-35 278 

II.            "                    "    xxiv.  14,  15 281 

Section  vii. — Passages  in  the  Epistles 284 

I. — Consideration  of  Rom.  viii.  10,11 284 

II.  "                     "      "     22-23 293 

III.  "                 2Cor.  v.  2-4 297 

IV.  "                     "       "10 300 

V.  "                 1  Thess.  iv.  13— 17 303 

VI.  «                  Philippians  iii.  21 313 

VII.  "                  2  Timothy  ii.  16— 18 315 

Section  viii. —  References    to    a  multitude  of  import- 
ant passages  touching   the  resurrection, 

wholly  unnoticed  by  Professor  Bush 318 

Chapter  IV. — The  Resurrection  of  Christ 327 

Chapter  V. — Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Judgment   345 

Section   ii. — Direct    arguments   for   a   future    general 

Judgment 360 

Conclusion 376 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  importance  of  the  doctrine  discussed  in  the  ensuing  work  can 
scarcely  be  over-estimated ;  and  in  reference  to  his  Anastasis,  Profes- 
sor Bush  therefore  truly  remarks,  "that  the  results  which  it  an. 
nounces  are  of  very  momentous  import  to  the  interests  of  revealed 
truth." — Preface^  p.  v.  They  are  indeed.  Nor  does  this  arise  alone 
from  the  intrinsic  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  in  itself  considered;  but  also  from  its  relative  importance  as 
viewed  in  connexion  with  the  great  system  of  truth  announced  in  the 
Word  of  God.  And  hence  the  Professor  has  correctly  observed  also, 
that  "  a  course  of  reasoning,  or  a  theory  of  interpretation  which  goes 
essentially  to  change  the  established  view  of  the  doctrine  of  the  re- 
surrection, must  necessarily  work  a  correspondent  change  in  our  esti- 
mate of  a  whole  class  of  subjects  bearing  upon  the  theme  of  humah 
destiny  in  another  life."— /6f  rf.  Such  being  the  fact,  it  may  of  course 
be  rationally  expected,  that  when  the  received  doctrine  on  this  subject 
is  assailed  from  any  respectable  source,  its  advocates  will  either  at- 
tempt to  defend  it,  or,  by  their  silence,  leave  it  to  be  inferred  that  they 
deem  it  incapable  of  defence.  Such  an  alternative  has  been  presented 
by  Professor  Bush.  We  cheerfully  accept  it:  and  only  ask  of  the 
Christian  public  patiently  to  hear  our  defence  of  the  doctrine  which 
he  has  assailed. 

It  is  conceded  by  all  that  the  theme  itself  is  sacred.  But  the  indi- 
vidual  who  asserts  that  because  it  involves  consequences  so  momen- 
tous, it  should  therefore  not  be  subjected  to  a  rigid  scrutiny,  has  alto- 
gether misapprehended  the  spirit  of  the  age  and  country  in  which  we 
live.  Mere  human  authority  is  losing  its  power  to  lead,  and  must  in 
turn  expect  its  own  claims  to  be  rigidly  tested.  And  while  an  adven- 
turer,  who,  like  Professor  Bush,  boldly  assumes  to  call  an  established 
doctrine  or  usage  in  question,  need  have  little  apprehension  of  being 
condemned  by  intelligent  men,  merely  for  thus  venturing,  he  himself 
has  made  a  wretchedly  mistaken  calculation  if  he  does  not  in  turn 
expect  to  have  his  own  theory  or  pretensions  as  rigidly  scrutinized. 
If  right,  he  may  therefore  reasonably  hope  to  receive  the  support  of 
the  candid  and  intelligent:  but  if  such  an  attempt  be  made  on  insuf- 
ficient grounds,  or  should  be  based  upon  crude  conceptions,  or  a  total 
misapprehension  of  the  subject;  or  should  prove  to  be  a  mere  effort  to 
revive  old  exploded  objections;  he  will  find  that  the  public,  to  whose 
verdict  he  professes  to  appeal,  will  not  be  slow  in  awarding  him  the 
full  meed  of  such  ill-timed  temerity. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

In  the  ensuing  pages  we  have  entered  into  a  thorough  investigation 
of  the  "Theory  of  the  Resurrection"  propounded  by  Professor  Sush; 
and  also  of  the  exceptions  which  he  has  taken  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Resurrection  of  the  Body.  Our  views  of  both  are  expressed  freely 
and  unambiguously.  The  Professor,  in  his  work,  has  spoken  plainly, 
and  in  some  parts  of  it  with  a  good  deal  of  asperity,  of  the  doctrines 
he  impugns,  and  of  those  who  entertain  them.  The  writer  o^  the 
present  work  has  likewise  "  used  great  plainness  of  speech ;"  but  he 
hopes  that  no  unkind  expression  has  escaped  him  in  reference  to  the 
Professor  personally,  for  whom  he  has  long  entertained,  and  still  does 
entertain  a  sincere  and  affectionate  regard.  Theological  controversy 
in  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  abounded  in  the  fiercest  and  most 
prescriptive  denunciations  of  individuals  as  well  as  of  opinions;  this, 
to  some  extent,  subsequently  gave  place  to  a  tone  of  discussion  so  ex- 
cessively mild,  even  where  the  most  important  interests  were  con- 
cerned,* that  many  were  strongly  inclined  to  infer  that  after  all 
nothing  of  real  importance  was  involved  in  the  controversy :  both 
alike  have  proved  extremely  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  truth,  and 
both  have  now  in  great  measure  given  place  to  a  frank  and  manly 
expression  of  thought,  in  the  interchange  of  which  it  is  mutually  con- 
ceded that  things  should  be  spoken  of  as  they  are.  Such  a  course  it 
was  the  aim  of  the  author  to  pursue  in  the  work  now  submitted  to  the 
reader. 

Professor  Bush  remarks  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  has 
been  but  "  seldom  interrogated  f  by  which  he  means  that  it  has  been 
but  seldom  subjected  to  a  close  and  rigid  examination.  In  this,  how- 
ever, he  is  mistaken  :  for  not  only  from  the  earliest  ages  until  now 
has  it  been  bitterly  opposed  by  pagans  and  infidels,  but  it  is  this  very 
opposition  itself  which  has  from  age  to  age  originated  the  efforts  (of 
which  his  ov/n  work  is  the  latest)  that  have  been  made  to  reconcile  it 
with  reason  and  philosophy.  At  the  commencement  of  our  work,  we 
have  given  a  succinct  history  of  the  Professor's  theory  as  respects  the 
development  of  its  more  prominent  features,  which  is  itself  sufficient 
to  evince  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  in  our  own  day 
ceased  to  be  a  subject  of  radical  investigation  simply  because  all  that 
could  be  offered  against  it  had  been  offered  in  vain.  No  doctrine  of 
the  Christian  system  has  been  more  thoroughly  scrutinized  by  friend 
and  foe,  (from  the  fact  of  its  plain  connexion  with  the  resurrection  of 
our  Saviour,)  and  none  more  fully  established  as  a  clear  announce- 
ment of  revelation,  than  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Nothing  therefore  can  be  more  out  of  place  than  an  attempt  to  justify 
any  assumed  impeachment  of  that  doctrine  by  intimating  that  so  far 
from  having  been  made  the  subject  of  profound  investigation,  the  ori- 
gin of  its  universal  reception  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Church  is 
a  mere  unsupported  tradition.  And  we  assert  emphatically,  that  any 
intimation  to  this  effect,  from  whatever  source  it  may  come,  is  not 
only  wholly  destitute  of  historical  support,  but  directly  contradicted 
by  fact. 

As  to  the  Anastasis  itself  of  Professor  Bush,  the  reader  will  doubt- 

*  See,  for  example,  the  controversial  writings  of  Dr.  John  Pye 
Smith. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

less  make  up  his  own  mind  respecting  it.  To  us,  however,  it  does 
appear  to  present  a  singularly  striking  contrast  to  those  expectations 
which  the  loud  and  confident  professions  of  its  author  at  the  outset, 
had  led  us  to  entertain.  As  to  arrangement,  it  is  any  thing  but  lucid. 
The  "  Argument  from  Reason"  is,  throughout,  the  most  singular  spe- 
cimen of  repetition  of  the  same  idea,  and  of  the  intermixture  of  Scrip- 
ture and  hermeneutics  with  exploded  fancies,  and  "  odds  and  ends"  of 
pretended  scientific  principles,  with  which  it  has  been  our  fortune  to 
meet  for  a  long  time.  Such  a  mass  of  confusion  may  astound  the  un- 
discriminating  reader,  and  make  him  believe,  perhaps,  that  there  must 
be  some  flame  where  there  is  so  much  smoke;  but  no  thinking  mind 
can  be  at  any  loss  to  know  what  estimate  should  be  put  upon  an  argu- 
ment of  such  a  character.  And  as  to  prefacing  his  work  with  an  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  "fAe  knowledge  of  revelation  is  progressive"  and 
intimating  that  his  theory  furnishes  an  illustration  of  the  truth  of 
this  proposition,  it  has,  as  we  have  shown,  something  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  ludicrous :  for  the  Professor  has  not,  in  his  -whole  book, 
advanced  a  solitary  fact  which  has  been  developed  or  established  by 
the  modern  improvements  either  in  science  or  biblical  hermeneutics. 
His  so-called  ''argument  from  reason,"  has  been  for  centuries  ad- 
vanced by  skeptics  and  Socinians  against  the  doctrine  which  he  as- 
sails; his  notions  of"  spiritualized  bodies"  are  wholly  visionary,  and 
lack  all  support  from  reason  or  any  thing  else;  and  his  principles  of 
hermeneutics  are  the  old  exploded  principles  of  the  neological  school 
of  Germany  :  and  in  his  whole  book  he  has  not  evinced  any  acquaint- 
ance with  the  really  advanced  state  of  criticism,  at  the  head  of  which 
school  Winer  stands  confessedly  pre-eminent.*  On  the  contrary,  the 
Professor's  criticisms  are  all  of  the  older  species,  in  which  the  sense 
of  a  word  is  perpetually  confounded  with  its  signijication.f  If,  there- 
fore, it  be  a  fact,  that  "the  knowledge  of  revelation  is  progressive,"  it 
is  a  fact  with  which  his  theory  has  no  more  to  do  than  with  the  dis- 
covery of  the  North  Pole.  And  this  branch  of  the  argument,  (upon 
which  he  professes  to  lay  very  great  stress,)  is  met^  not  only  by  a  dis- 
tinct and  direct  denial  that  it  has  any  thing  to  do  w^ith  the  subject  in 
support  of  which  he  has  adduced  it,  but  by  showing  that  it  is  wholly 
irrelevant. 

The  reader  will  also  perceive  that  we  have  very  carefully  dissected 


*  "  Winer  is  the  first  who  broke  up  the  arbitrary  methods  of  pre- 
ceding critics.  Among  the  excellencies  of  this  grammarian,  is  espe- 
cially  to  be  noticed  and  extolled  his  sound  judgment  and  discretion. 
He  has  made  the  following  remarkable  confession  in  reference  to  the 
new  method,  as  compared  to  the  old,  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures : 
*  The  controversies  among  interpreters  have  ordinarily  led  back  to  the 
admission,  that  the  old  Protestant  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
text,  are  the  correct  views;'  see  Leips.  Litteratur.  Zeituns^,  1833, 
No.  44."  Tholuck — see  his  "Lectures"  in  Biblioth.  Sac.  for  1844. 
And  see  also  the  preface  to  his  commentary  on  John. 

t  "The  signification  of  a  term,"  says  Tholuck,  "is  the  meaning 
which  it  has  in  itself  originally ;  the  sense  of  it  is  the  meaning  which 
it  acquires  in  a  certain  connexion." 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

"  tlie  argument  from  reason,"  and  have  demonstrated  that  even  if  its 
premises  and  conclusions  vi^ere  all  granted,  it  would  support  but  the 
merest  fraction  of  the  theory  which  our  author  professes  to  have 
erected  upon  it :  and  in  addition  to  this  we  have  shown  that  both  its 
premises  and  conclusions  are  unsound  and  unphilosophical,  and  that 
the  argument  can  by  no  means  be  relied  on.  We  have  also  replied 
at  length  to  the  Professor's  "  objections  from  reason"  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  have  devoted  a  chapter  to  a  con- 
sideration of''  the  true  office  of  reason  in  respect  to  Revelation." 

The  first  part  of  our  volume  is  occupied  with  the  foregoing  consi- 
derations;* and  as  the  second  is  devoted  to  an  investigation  of  the 
scriptural  argument,  we  commence  it  with  a  discussion  of  Professor 
Bush's  principles  of  interpretation;  and  have  shown  them  to  be  neo- 
logical  in  their  nature,  and  wholly  subversive  of  Revelation  in  their 
tendency.  In  his  development  and  illustration  of  these  principles, 
he  not  only  has  adopted  the  theory  of  hermeneutics  which  transformed 
Germany  into  a  nation  of  infidels,  but  has  actually  sought  to  recom- 
mend it  to  our  American  churches !  The  writer  has  thought  it  his 
duty  to  discuss  this  principle  somewhat  thoroughly;  for,  after  all,  it  is 
the  most  dangerous  feature  of  the  Professor's  performance.  If  the 
principle  be  correct,  little  can  be  said  against  his  attempt  to  make 
Revelation  subservient  to  reason  and  philosophy;  or,  in  other  words, 
to  show  from  reason  and  science  what  Revelation  ought  to  teach.  But 
at  the  very  outset  of  our  discussion  of  the  Scripture  argument,  we 
have  affirmed  the  principle  that  the  announcements  of  the  Word  of 
God  are  to  be  fearlessly  followed^  lead  where  they  may  ;  and  that  in 
all  such  discussions  as  the  present,  they  are  to  be  assumed  as  first 
principles,  even  should  reason  or  science  appear  to  array  itself  against 
them.  This  principle,  so  happily  presented  in  the  following  quota- 
tions, is  that  by  which  we  are  content  to  abide,  and  in  support  of  which 
the  great  names  of  Bacon,  Ernesti,  and  Hahn,  as  well  as  of  Stuart 
and  Hodge,  and  others  in  our  own  country,  stand  pre-eminent.  "  All 
creeds,  systems,  theories,  sciences,"  says  Dr.  Skinner,t  "are  to  be  tried 
by  the  Bible,  and  to  be  rejected  as  falsifying  the  Divine  veracity,  if 
they  cannot  abide  the  trial.  To  a  man  who  understands  the  literary 
character  of  the  Bible,  and  remembers  the  fallibility  of  the  human 
mind,  and  the  influence  of  depravity  in  obscuring  evidence  and  per- 


*  I  have  not  formally  discussed  in  this  work  the  Professor's  doctrine 
of  "  natural  laws ;"  respecting  which  he  says — "  The  idea  maintained 
throughout"  the  Anastasis  "  is  that  the  resurrection  is  effected  by 
natural  laws,^^  Pref  p.  xi. ;  and  on  p.  35 — "  It  is  by  no  means  impos- 
sible that  the  most  signal  miracles  on  record  may  ultimately  resolve 
themselves  into  the  operation  of  some  higher  law,  which  may  never 
have  been  previously  known  except  to  its  Author."  It  would  be  a 
reflection  upon  a  Christian  community  to  attempt  a  serious  refiitation 
of  a  notion  so  perfectly  extravagant.  The  miraculous  conception  of 
our  blessed  Redeemer,  is  one  among  the  *'  miracles  on  record,"  and 
what  can  transcend  the  perfect  atrocity  of  the  principle  which  would 
even  intimate  that  it  was  "effected  by  natural  laws !" 

t  "  Aids  to  Preaching  and  Hearing,"  pp.  53  —54. 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

verting  reason,  this  is  a  motive  of  resistless  power  to  tiie  utmost  dili- 
gence, candor,  and  seriousness  in  searching  out  the  real  doctrine  of 
the  sacred  text."  In  like  manner  also,  says  Robert  Hall — "  In  our 
apprehension,  the  true  way  of  contemplating  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Christianity  is  to  consider  them  as  facts  believed  on  the  authority  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  not  to  be  proved  by  reason ;  since  their  truth  does 
not  result  from  any  perceptible  relations  in  our  ideas,  but  they 
owe  their  existence  entirely  to  the  will  and  counsel  of  the  Almighty 
Potentate.  On  this  account  we  never  consider  it  safe  to  rest  their 
truth  on  a  philosophical  basis,  nor  imagine  it  is  possible  to  add  to 
their  evidence  by  an  elaborate  train  of  reasoning.  Let  the  fair  gram- 
matical import  of  Scripture  language  be  investigated  ;  and  whatever 
propositions  are,  by  an  easy  and  natural  interpretation,  deducible  ti-om 
thence,  let  tliem  be  received  as  the  dictates  of  Infinite  Wisdom,  what- 
ever aspect  they  bear,  or  whatever  difficulties  they  present."*  These 
principles  liave  ever  been  dear  to  our  American  Zion,  and  long  may 
they  continue  to  be  so ! 

The  next  topic  of  the  Professor's  treatise,  is  the  Old  Testament  ar- 
gument. In  this  we  have  carefully  fidlowed  him  step  by  step,  and 
have  shown  that  he  has  not  only  failed  to  find  iJicrein  any  support  for 
his  own  theory,  but  has  entirely  failed  to  meet  the  argument  from 
the  Old  Testament  for  the  resurrection  of  tiie  body.  Preparatory  also 
to  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the  New  Testament  argument,  we 
have  devoted  a  section  to  a  definition  of  the  terms  avasTTstirjc  and  (rlfx^ 
?rvivfji.a.TiH.-A' ;  the  latter  of  which.  Professor  Bush  employs  with  a  lati- 
tude of  signification  which  is  certainly  in  advance  of  all  preceding 
lexicography. 

We  have  also  fi>llowed  the  Professor  patiently  through  his  long  ar- 
ray of  New  Testament  citations,  and  have,  we  think,  shown  the  irre- 
levancy of  his  every  attempt  to  obviate  their  overpowering  testimony 
in  favour  of  the  doctrine  which  he  assails.  The  reader  may,  however, 
suppose  that  too  much  space  is  occupied  in  refuting  the  Professor's 
criticism  on  a-Trne^ut  in  I  Cor.  xv.  42— 44;  but  a  moment's  reflection 
will  evince  that  if  "sow"  there  refers  to  burial,  the  Professor's  notion 
of  the  resurrection  taking  place  at  death  is  false.  He  himself  felt 
this,  and  therefore  adopts  the  Socinian  exegcfis. 

At  the  close  of  this  examination,  we  have  adduced  a  large  number 
of  passages  (entirely  unnoticed  by  Professor  Bush,)  teaching  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body.  This  is  followed  by  a  chapter  exposing  our 
author's  statements  respecting  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  this  is 
likewise  followed  by  amtther  on  the  Judgment,  which  concludes  the 
argument. 

When  this  work  was  commenced,  it  was  the  writer's  intention  to 
prepare  a  third  part,  in  wliich  it  was  designed  to  present  a  view  of 
the  direct  and  positive  argument  in  favour  of  tlie  resurrection;  con- 
taining a  view  also  of  the  doctrine  as  held  by  the  ancient  Jews  and 
the  primitive  Christian  church,  as  well  as  an  inquiry  into  the  senti- 
ments entertained  by  Chrysippus,  Demoeritus,  and  others  of  the  an- 
cient philosophical  heathen,  respecting  the  possibility  of  a  resurrec- 
tion.    But  the  work  has  increased  to  such  a  bulk  that  this  design 

»  Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  3.9. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

was  abandoned  by  the  author,  lest  he  should  incur  the  censure  of  the 
old  proverb — juiyct  0i0Kiov  fAyA  kakov.  There  are  many  points  which, 
for  the  same  reason,  we  have  been  compelled  to  omit,  but  which  have  no 
little  weight  in  this  discussion :  e.  g.,  the  very  ancient  custom  of  em- 
balming  the  body,  plainly  owes  its  origin  to  the  expectation  of  revi- 
viscence,  according  to  the  statement  of  Democritus,  as  mentioned  by 
Pliny  and  Varro.  So  also,  the  very  design  of  burial  under  the  cir- 
cumstances referred  to  by  Prudentius,  in  a  passage  which  we  have 
placed  on  our  title  page,*  furnishes  of  itself  a  complete  off-set  to  the 
so-called  "argument  from  reason"  against  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  So  also,  the  fact  that  man  was  created  immortal,  is  a  consider- 
ation of  great  weight  to  prove  the  same  doctrine. 

We  had  intended  also  in  a  distinct  chapter  to  consider  the  resur- 
rection of  the  wicked,  (a  point  denied  by  Professor  Bush,)  and  the 
reason  why  our  Saviour  speaks  of  the  righteous  as  emphatically  the 
"children  of  the  resurrection."  But  though  we  have  not  (for  the 
reason  above  stated)  treated  these  and  several  other  subjects  in  the 
form  of  distinct  topics,  we  hope  that  all  has  been  said  in  relation  to 
them  that  the  discussion  itself  required. 

And,  finally,  as  the  writer  has,  in  no  way,  throughout  his  book, 
sought  to  influence  the  mind  of  the  reader  by  an  appeal  to  his  passions 
or  prejudices,  he  has  said  nothing  concerning  the  violence  which  the 
theory  of  Professor  Bush  does  to  all  tiiose  tender  and  endearing  asso- 
ciations which  cluster  around  the  grave  of  a  father  or  mother,  a  sister, 
or  child,  &c,,  and  to  those  hallowed  feelings  which  awaken  within 
the  breast  as  we  gaze  upon  the  resting-place  of  departed  piety,  genius, 
worth,  or  patriotism.  These  emotions  can  be  neither  superstitious  nor 
wrong;  (witness  the  weeping  Jesus  at  the  tomb  of  his  friend  I)  and 
the  man  is  not  to  be  envied  who  has,  by  any  means  whatever,  suc- 
ceeded in  quenching  them  within  his  breast. 


*  Why  do  they  wish  for  the  hollowed-out  rocks  ? 

Or  wherefore  the  beautiful  monuments  crave? 
Unless  'tis  beliov'd  that  the  body  but  slumbers 

And  is  not  abandoned  to  death  in  the  grave. 


THE  RESURRECTION   OF    THE    BODY 

ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED. 


PAET  I. 


CONTAINING  A  STATEMENT  OP  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION,  AND 
OF  PROFESSOR  BUSH's  THEORY ;  TOGETHER  WITH  A  CONSIDERATION  OF 
HIS  ARGUMENT  FROM  REASON. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY  STATED. 

TSE  work  of  Professor  Bush  on  the  Resurrection  would 
have  exhibited  an  appearance  of  greater  candour,  if  he  had, 
at  the  outset,  presented  from  some  acknowledged  symbol,  a 
fair  and  full  statement  of  the  doctrine  which  he  has  attempted 
to  refute.  Instead  of  this  frank  and  scholar-like  course,  he 
contents  himself  with  some  vague  references  to  "the  com- 
mon theoryy^^  and  ventures  to  insinuate  repeatedly  through 
his  work,  that  the  views  entertained  on  this  subject  by  the 
Christian  church  are  inconsistent  and  indeterminate.*  That 
such  is  their  character,  he  is  welcome  to  prove,  if  he  is  able. 
But  alongside  of  such  intimations,  it  would,  doubtless,  have 
been  the  more  candid  course  to  state  the  doctrine  clearly  and 
plainly  in  the  acknowledged  terms  of  those  who  entertain  it. 
He  might  then  have  also  spared  himself  much  of  the  labour 
which  he  has  put  forth  in  demolishing  mere  men  of  straw; 

*  See  pp.  36—39,  45,  48,  54,  55,  and  187,  &c. 
2 


14  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

and  in  discussing  how  bodies  that  were  never  in  graves  could 
come  out  of  them,  (see  pp.  49,  50,)  with  a  multitude  of  other, 
and  not  less  irrelevant  matters. 

There  is  no  doctrine  respecting  which  the  views  of  the 
church  of  God  have,  in  every  age,  been  more  perfectly  har- 
monious than  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
She  has  ever  regarded  it  as  a  doctrine  of  pure  revela- 
tion, and  as  fundamental  to  the  Christian  system.  And  the 
TricTTsyo)  ik  a-ctgiclc  dvAtrTacrtv  of  the  first  symbol,  has  expressed 
unambiguously  the  faith  of  the  whole  Christian  church  ever 
since  the  hour  in  which  it  was  penned. 

Professor  Bush  had  doubtless  reasons  which  were  satis- 
factory to  his  own  mind  for  the  course  which  he  has  pur- 
sued. But,  that  we  may  not  be  like  those  who  "  beat  the 
air,"  it  will  be  proper  to  present  here  a  view  of  the  doctrine 
under  discussion.  The  reader  will  then  at  once  be  enabled 
to  judge  of  the  force  of  the  arguments  which,  in  this  dis- 
cussion, are  alleged  both  for  and  against  it :  as  well  as  of 
the  relevancy  of  many  things  which  Professor  Bush  has 
offered  with  the  intention  of  refuting  it.  Our  citations  will 
be  somewhat  extended ;  but  not  more  so,  perhaps,  than  is 
necessary  to  show  with  what  little  reason  the  doctrine  has 
been  impugned  on  the  score  that  the  views  of  those  who  pro- 
fess to  entertain  it  are  vague  and  indefinite. 

We  shall  not  here  go  back  to  the  Jewish  or  primitive 
Christian  church,  for  a  delineation  of  the  doctrine;  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  refer  to  their  views.  But 
we  shall  present  a  definition  of  it  as  entertained  by  the  Pro- 
testant church  at  large ;  and  in  contrast  thereto,  shall,  in  the 
following  chapter,  present  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush. 
The  Professor  has  connected  with  his  theory,  and  has  conse- 
quently discussed,  many  doctrines  which  need  not  be  fully 
discussed  in  this  connexion.  And  though  we  shall  refer  to 
these  in  the  sequel,  the  single  point  which  we  have  now 
before  us,  and  from  which  we  must  not  suffer  our  attention 
to  be  diverted,  is  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body. 

SECTION  I. 

The  testimony  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  first  great  division  of  the  Protestant  church,  whose 
testimony  we  shall  summon,  is  the  Lutheran  church.  In 
her  Augsburg  symbol,  Art.  XVII.,  she  thus  speaks ;  "  Our 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  15 

churches  teach,  that  at  the  end  of  the  world  Christ  will  ap- 
pear for  judgment,  and  will  raise  all  the  dead ;  and  that  he 
will  bestow  eternal  life  and  perpetual  happiness  upon  his 
pious  elect ;  and  condemn  wicked  men  and  devils  to  unend- 
ing torment. 

"  Our  churches  also  condemn  the  Anabaptists,  who  think 
that  the  future  punishment  of  men  and  devils  will  have  an 
end.  They  condemn  also  those  who  now  circulate  the 
Jewish  notion,  that  the  pious  are  to  possess  the  kingdom  of 
the  world,  and  the  wicked  to  be  every  where  put  down  before 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead."* 

The  Herrnhiitters,  or  Moravians,  adopt  also  the  Augs- 
►  burg  Confession,  and  may  therefore  be  properly  classed  with 
the  Lutheran  church,  at  least  on  this  subject.  See  Span- 
genberg^s  Exposition,  Preface,  p.  vi.,  and  pp.  461 — 470. 

SECTION  II. 

Testimony  of  the  Calvinistic  Church. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  the  first  symbol  to  which 
itis  necessary  to  refer  under  this  discussion.  Its  language 
is  very  explicit :  "  How  doth  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
{Fleisches,)  afford  thee  comfort?  Ans.  Because  not  only 
my  soul  shall,  after  this  life,  be  immediately  taken  up  to 
Christ  its  head ;  but  this  my  body  also,  (sondern  auch,  dass 
diess  mein  Fleisch,)  being  raised  by  the  power  of  Christ, 
shall  be  again  united  with  my  soul,  and  be  like  the  glorious 
body  of  Christ."     See  Quest.  57  .f 

*  Item  docent,  qudd  Cfaristus  apparebit  in  consummatione  muhdi 
ad  judicandum,  et  mortuos  omnes  resuscitabit,  piis  et  electis  dabit 
vitam  seternam  et  perpetua  gaudia,  impios  autem  homines  ac  diabolos 
condemnabit,  ut  sine  fine  crucientur. 

Damnant  Anabaptistas,  qui  sentiunthominibus  damnatis  ac  diabolis 
finem  poenarum  futuruni  esse.  Damnant  et  alios,  qui  nunc  spargunt 
Judaicas  opiniones,  quod  ante  resurrectionem  mortuorum,  pii  regnum 
mundi  occupaturi  sint,  ubique  oppressis  impiis. 

+  Was  trOstet  dich  die  Auferstehung  des  Fleisches  ?  Antw.  Dass 
nicht  allein  meine  Seele  nach  diesem  Leben  alsbald  zu  Christo 
ihrem  Haupt  genommen  wird,  sondern  auch,  dass  diess  mein  Fleisch 
durch  die  Kraft  Christi  auferwecket,  wieder  mit  meiner  Seele  vereini- 
get  und  dem  herrlichen  Leib  Christi  gleichfOrmig  werden  soil. 

The  Latin  copy  is  singularly  expressive.  Quid  te  consolatur  resur- 
rectio  carnis?  Resp.  Quod  non  tantum  anima  mea,  postquam  e 
corpore  excesserit,  etc.,  quod  hopc  quoque  caro  mea  potentia  Christi 
excitata,  rursus  aninuB  mecB  unictur^  et  glorioso  corpori  Christi  con- 
ibrmabitur. 


16  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

The  Reformed  Churches  at  the  National  Synod  of  Dort, 
(anno  1618  and  1619,)  adopted  the  following  language  as 
expressive  of  their  views :  "  Finally,  we  believe,  according 
to  the  word  of  God,  when  the  time  appointed  by  the  Lord 
(which  is  unknown  to  all  creatures,)  is  come,  and  the  num- 
ber of  the  elect  complete,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will 
come  from  heaven,  corporeally  and  visibly,  to  declare  him- 
self judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead ;  burning  this  old  world 
with  fire  and  flame  to  cleanse  it.  And  then  all  will  per- 
sonally appear  before  this  great  Judge,  both  men,  and  women, 
and  children,  that  have  been  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
to  the  end  thereof,  being  summoned  by  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  and  by  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  of  God.  For 
all  the  dead  shall  be  raised  out  of  the  earth,  and  their  souls 
joined  and  united  with  their  proper  bodies,  in  which  they 
formerly  lived.  As  for  those  who  shall  be  then  living,  they 
shall  not  die  as  the  others,  but  be  changed  in  the  twinkhng 
of  an  eye,  and  from  corruptible,  become  incorruptible,"  &c. 
Conf.  of  Faith,  Art.  37. 

The  Westminster  symbols  speak  the  same  unequivocal 
language.  See  Larger  Catechism,  Questions  87  and  88. 
See  also  Conf,  of  Faith,  chapter  32. 

The  Baptist  Church  adopts  the  language  of  the  West- 
minster Confession. 

The  English  Church  bears  a  like  testimony.  And  in 
Article  4th,  also,  she  says,  "Christ  did  truly  rise  again  from 
death,  and  took  again  his  body,  with  flesh,  bones,  and  all 
things  appertaining  to  the  perfection  of  man's  nature, 
wherewith  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  there  sitteth,  until 
he  return  to  judge  all  men  at  the  last  day."  The  doctrine 
of  this  article  is  alike  entertained  by  every  branch  of  the 
Christian  church.  See  Westminster  Conf.,  chap.  8,  sect. 
4,  and  Larger  Catechism,  Quest.  52.  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, Quest.  47,  48,  49  and  52.  Dordrecht  Confession, 
Art.  19,  and  Augsburg  Conf,  Art.  3. 

SECTION  III. 

Testimony  of  the  Arminian  Church. 

In  Article  19,  of  the  Confession,  the  Remonstrants  say, 
that  "  The  resuscitation  of  the  dead  shall  take  place  when 
Jesus  Christ  comes  to  judge  all  men  at  his  second  and 
glorious  advent;  at  which  time,  all. the  dead,  the  just  as  well 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  17 

as  the  unjust,  being  recalled  to  life,  shall,  together  with  those 
who  are  alive  and  remain,  be  judged  at  the  tribunal  of 
his  Father.  Then  his  faithful  and  holy  followers  who  were 
dead,  shall  he  raised  from  the  dust  of  the  earth  into  eternal 
life  and  blessedness;  and  shall  be  endowed  wii.h  a  glorious 
and  incorruptible  body:  while  those  who  are  then  living  shall 
be  changed,"  &c. 

The  Methodist  Church,  adopts  substantially  the  article 
of  the  Church  of  England,  above  quoted. 

Such  then  is  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  church,  re- 
specting this  cardinal  doctrine.  And  I  cannot  but  think  that 
the  intellect  which  can  discover  any  ambiguity  in  these  an- 
nouncements of  a  future  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  a 
judgment  to  come,  must  be  endowed  with  a  degree  of  acute- 
ness  to  which  few  can  pretend  without  an  equal  degree  of 
presumption.  And  though  there  have  been  men  who  have 
speculated  on  the  subject,  and  who  have  entertained  views 
somewhat  diverse  from  these,  yet  this  no  more  proves  that 
the  views  of  the  Christian  church,  respecting  the  resurrec- 
tion, have  been  unsettled  and  indefinite,  than  the  fact  that 
Professor  Bush  entertains  a  difl^erent  view  from  his  brethren, 
proves  the  views  to  be  unsettled  of  the  community  to  which 
he  belongs; 


CHAPTER  II. 

A   BRIEF  VIEW   OF    PROFESSOR    BDSH's    THEORY    OF   THE   'RESURRECTION, 
AND   OF   ITS   CORRELATIVE   DOCTRINES    AS   STATED   BY   HIMSELF. 

In  delineating  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  it  is  only  fair 
and  proper  to  let  him  speak  for  himself.  "  After  all,"  says 
he,  "  I  know  not  that  a  mainly  deprecatory  tone  is  that 
which  the  true  character  of  my  work  most  properly  war- 
rants. If  I  could  deem  myself  to  have  come  forth  as  an  op- 
ponent to  the  great  truth  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection — if  I  had  invaded  in  a  ruthless  way  the  faith  of 
a  future  life,  of  immortality,  of  retribution — I  might  have 
stronger  motives  for  seeking  to  soften  the  sentence  which  I 
could  not  hope  to  avoid.  But  it  is  not  in  this  character  that 
I  claim  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Christian  public. 
There  is  nothing  destructive  in  the  bearings  of  the  theory 
2* 


18  THE  RESURRECTION  QF  THE  BODY 

here  presented.  I  have  advanced  nothing  that  is  intrinsi- 
cally calculated  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  great  moral 
sanctions  of  the  gospel.  I  leave  the  sublime  announcements 
of  the  resurrection — the  judgment — heaven — hell — clothed 
with  all  their  essential  practical  potency,  as  doctrines  of  re- 
velation, though  placed,  as  I  trust,  upon  their  true  founda- 
tion, and  eliminated  from  the  mixtures  of  long-adhering  error. 
I  may  venture  then  to  say,  that  whatever  sentiments  of  re- 
pugnance the  views  here  broached  may  encounter  in  limine, 
it  will  arise  rather  from  the  hearsay  results  which  I  have 
announced,  than  from  a  calm  and  candid  scanning  of  the 
entire  argument.  The  issue  of  this  I  am  confident  will  be  a 
far  more  elevated  and  satisfying  view  of  man's  ulterior  des- 
tiny, than  that  which  is  afforded  by  the  common  construc- 
tion of  the  subjects  I  have  treated.  The  theory  here  an- 
nounced of  the  Resurrection,  while  it  perfectly  obviates  the 
objections  from  reason,  clothes  the  Scripture  statements  with 
a  new  interest,  from  the  bare  fact  that  they  are  seen  to  be 
capable  of  uttering  their  oracles  in  harmony  with  the  dicta 
of  science  and  philosophy."  Preface,  pp.  vii.  and  viii. 

Such  is  the  view  which  he  entertains  of  his  theory,  and  of 
the  results  which  it  announces.  Whether  his  estimate  is 
not  a  partial  one,  the  reader  will  have  an  opportunity  to  de- 
ternline  from  the  theory  itself,  (which  is  here  subjoined,)  and 
the  examination  which  follows. 

1.  In  respect  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  he  uses  the 
following  language.  "  The  resurrection  of  the  body,  if  my 
reasonings  and  expositions  are  well  founded,  is  not  a  doctrine 
of  revelation."  Preface,  p.  v.  And  on  page  x.,  he  denies 
"  the  reconstruction  of  the  future  body  out  of  the  dissolved 
and  dissipated  remains  of  the  present  one,"  and  asserts  that 
"  the  prevalent  views  of  the  resurrection,  when  once  sub- . 
mitted  to  the  ordeal  of  the  understanding,  are  seen  to  in- 
volve ideas  at  war  with  each  other,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
intelligently  received,''''* 

Again,  "  What  then  becomes  of  the  scriptural  evidence 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  7    Does  it  not  evaporate  in 

*  Surely  this  is  highly  complimentary  language  !  And  Professor 
Bush's  book  contains  many  such  unkind  and  most  unwarrantable  in- 
sinuations. See  pp.  62,  117,  152,  153,  155,  162,  263,  &c.  &c.  Pro- 
fessor Bush  surely  ought  to  know  that  to  mingle  such  expressions  in 
a  religious  controversy,  is  calculated  only  to  excite,  in  minds  in- 
fluenced  by  them,  the  embittered  feelings  of  the  odium  theologicum. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED 

the  crucible  of  logical  and  philological  induction?  'And  is 
it  not  inevitable  that  a  great  change  must  come  over  our 
estimate  of  the  doctrine,  viewed  as  a  disclosure  of  holy  writ? 
Can  it  hereafter  present  the  same  aspect  to  the  reflecting 
mind  as  formerly,  when  conceived  to  involve  the  averment 
of  the  requickening  of  the  inhumed  relics  of  the  corporeal 
structure  1  Especially,  are  we  not  presented  with  a  new  and 
all  important  view  of  the  central  fact,  our  Saviour's  resurrec- 
tion?— Can  the  evidence  be  resisted?"  &c.  &c.,  p.  347.  One 
can  hardly  read  this  without  being  reminded  of  the  language 
of  Milton :  "  I  began,"  says  he,  "  thus  far  to  assent  both  to 
them  and  divers  of  my  friends  here  at  home,  and  not  less  to 
an  inward  -prompting  which  now  grew  daily  upon  me,  that 
by  labour  and  intense  study,  (which  I  take  to  be  my  portion 
in  this  Y\^e,)  joined  by  the  strong  propensity  of  nature,  I 
might  perhaps  leave  something  so  written  to  after-times,  as 
they  should  not  willingly  let  die."*  Surely  the  self-confi- 
dence in  these  two  passages  is  the  same;  only  that  Milton 
employs  the  word  "  perhaps'''  which  Professor  Bush  does 
not  think  it  at  all  necessary  to  use.  And  we  might  say  of 
the  Professor  what  Dr.  Johnson  says  with  reference  to  Mil- 
ton, "  It  appears,  in  all  his  writings,  that  he  had  the  usual 
concomitant  of  great  abilities,  a  lofty  and  steady  confidence 
in  himself,  perhaps  not  without  some  contempt  of  others."")" 
For  he  seems  to  entertain  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  his 
book  will  evaporate  "  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,"  and  inevitably  produce  "  a  great  change  in  our  esti- 
mate of  the  doctrine,"  so  that  *'  hereafter  "  it  cannot  "  pre- 
sent to  the  reflecting  mind  the  same  aspect  as  formerly, ^^ 
when  Bacon,  Boyle,  Newton,  Calvin,  Luther,  Augustin,  and 
others  examined  it  and  thought  it  to  be  true. 

Professor  Bush  thus  denies  and  discards  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  pro- 
fesses to  believe  in  "  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.^^  We 
shall  therefore  next  proceed  to  inquire  what  is  the  import 
which  he  attaches  to  this  expression. 

2.  Professor  Bush's  theory  of  the  resurrection  does  not, 
therefore,  either  include  or  infer  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body :  and  dvdirrAa-is  rZv  vatglv  does  not  in  his 

*  See  "  The  Reason  of  Church  Government  urged  against  Prelacy." 
Introduction  to  Book  II.  Milton's  Prose  writings,  p.  43.  London, 
1835. 

t  Lives  of  the  Poets,  vol.  i.  p.  144.  London,  1795. . 


80  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

view  "strictly  imply  the  resurrection  of  a  decomposed 
bodily  fabric,  nor  the  restoration  of  a  suspended  bodily 
life."  p.  390.  In  defining,  then,  what  he  means  by  the 
"  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  we  shall  be  obliged  to  specify 
and  illustrate  several  particulars. 

(1 .)  He  asserts  that  a  spiritual  body  is  "  eliminated''^*  from 
the  corporeal  body  at  death.  *'  If  the  fair  construction  of 
his  (Paul's)  language,"  says  Professor  Bush,  "  does  not 
imply  that  there  is  something  developed  out  of  the  dead 
body,  which  forms  the  link  of  connexion  between  it  and  the 
resurrection  body,  then  it  would  be  hard  to  show  that  it 
teaches  any  thing  on  the  subject,  an  alternative  to  which, 
with  the  qualifications  and  explanations  that  follow,  we 
readily  subscribe.  We  cannot  understand  the  apostle's 
reasoning,  unless  he  means  to  affirm  that  there  is  some- 
thing of  the  nature  of  a  germ  which  emanates  from  the  de- 
fund  body,  and  forms  either  the  substance  or  the  nucleus 
of  the  future  resurrection  body.f  But  this  principle  we 
contend  to  be  what  the  apostle  calls  spiritual,  that  is,  invi- 
sible, impalpable,  refined,  ethereal — something  that  is  essen- 
tially connected  with  vital  operations — something  that  is 
exhaled  with  the  dying  breath,  or,  in  other  words,  that  goes 
forth  from  the  body  before  it  is  consigned  to  the  dust — for 
after  the  body  has  mouldered  away  in  the  grave,  we  per- 
ceive not  how  any  germ  or  embryo  is  ever  to  emanate  from 
it."  p.  178.     See  also  pp.  179,  240,  241,  &c. 

(2.)  He  asserts  also  that  this  elimination  of  a  spiritual  body 
from  the  corporeal,  is  by  natural  laws,  and  not  by  the  mira- 
culous operation  of  almighty  power. 

His  language  on  this  subject  is  peculiar.  He  pointedly 
denies  that  the  resurrection  is  effected  by  the  "  purely  mira- 
culous agency  of  God."  Preface,  p.  xii.  And  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  sentiment,  maintains  continually  that  it  is  effected 
by  "natural  laws,"  though  he  nowhere  tells  what  these  laws 
are :  but  on  the  contrary  says  that  we  know  little  or  nothing 
about  them.  Ibid.  See  also  pp.  x.  and  xi.,  and  82,  84,  179, 
180,  345,  346,  347,  394,  &c. 

*  Eliminate,  to  expel,  to  throw  off,  to  discharge,  &c.  It  comes 
from  the  Latin  elimino. 

t  In  our  discussion  of  the  apostle's  language,  here  referred  to,  we 
have  shown  that  this  notion  of  "«  germ,''  is  neither  asserted  nor  ira- 
j>lied  in  any  thing  which  he  has  said.  It  is  a  mere  figment  of  the 
imagination,  which  originated  in  a  total  misapprehension  of  the  true 
point  of  his  argument.  Vide  infra,  Part  II.  chap.  iii.  §  3.  sub-sec- 
tion iv. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  21 

(3.)  The  state  of  this  spiritual  body  when  first  eliminated. 
On  this  subject  the  Professor  speaks  as  follows : 
.  "  We  may  perhaps  admit,  as  some  are  disposed  to  main- 
tain, that  this  spiritual  body  does  not  attain  to  its  perfection 
at  once ;  that  as  it  enters  the  spiritual  world  as  a  germ,  so, 
as  the  vital  principle,  under  appropriate  laws,  forms  for  it- 
self— or,  as  the  Germans  say,  builds  up  for  itself — a  mate- 
rial body,  out  of  material  elements ;  in  like  manner  it  may 
elaborate  for  itself  a  spiritual  corporeity,  from  the  spiritual 
elements  by  which  it  is  surrounded.  This,  we  say,  may  pos- 
sibly be  so.  We  can  at  present  neither  gainsay  nor  affirm 
it,  &c."  p.  181.  Yet  several  pages  back  he  seemed  to  have 
very  little  hesitation  to  affirm  it.  He  says,  "  We  cannot 
understand  the  apostle's  reasoning,  unless  he  means  to  affirm 
that  there  is  something  of  the  nature  of  a  germ  which  ema- 
nates from  the  defunct  body,  and  forms  either  the  substance 
or  the  NUCLEUS  of  the  future  resurrection  body.''''  p.  178. 

(4.)  This  spiritual  body  enters  into  the  composition  of  man 
during  his  present  terrene  life. 

On  this  point  the  Professor's  language  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood. He  says :  "  Even  in  the  present  life,  it  is  the 
spiritual  body  which  feels  the  sensations  of  pleasure  or  pain. 
How  much  more  in  the  life  to  come."  p.  264.  See  also  the 
foregoing  extracts. 

(5.)  Wherein  does  this  spiritual  body  differ  from  the  soul 
or  spirit  of  man?  On  this  point  I  am  much  in  the  dark, 
though  I  have  closely  studied  the  Professor's  book  in  order 
to  obtain  light  on  the  subject.  His  theory  sadly  labours 
here  from  the  fact  that  he  both  admits  the  immortality  of 
the  wicked  and  denies  their  resurrection.  See  pp.  70,  71, 
72,  73,  76,  &c.     But  of  this  more  in  the  sequel. 

3.  Professor  Bush's  theory  as  to  the  relative  condition 
of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  the  resurrection  state. 

(1.)  He  maintains  that  the  righteous  alone  enter  upon  the 
resurrection  ^tate. 

He  plainly  and  unequivocally  asserts  that  "  the  resurrec- 
tion is  the  same  with  the  future  life  of  the  righteous."  p.  191. 
"  It  is  unquestionable  that  our  Lord  speaks  in  this  passage, 
(John  V.  28,  29,)  in  stronger  terms  than  he  usually  adopts 
in  regard  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  However  it  may 
be  accounted  for,  the  fact  is  nevertheless  certain,  that  he  for 
the  most  part  speaks  of  it  as  the  distinguishing  privilege  and 
prerogative  of  the  righteous.    Thus  Luke  xx.  35,  36  j  *  But 


22  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

they  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain  that  world, 
a7id  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  neither  marry,  nor  are 
given  in  marriage  ;  neither  can  they  die  any  more ;  for  they 
are  equal  unto  the  angels,  and  are  the  children  (sons)  of* 
God,  being  the  children  (sons)  of  the  resurrection.  Here  it 
is  clear  that  the  *  children  of  God'  are  identified  as  the  same 
with  '  the  children  of  the  resurrection.'  Again,  Luke  xiv. 
12 — 14,  when  commanding  his  disciples  to  call  the  poor, 
the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind,  to  their  feasts,  he  adds, 
'  And  thou  shalt  be  blessed ;  for  they  cannot  recompense 
thee ;  for  thou  shalt  be  recompensed  at  the  resurrection  of 
the  just'^  as  if  the  resurrection  belonged  emphatically  to  the 
just."  pp.  234,  5.  "  The  true  resurrection  takes  place  at 
the  death  of  every  individual  believer,  when  he  emerges 
from  a  material  into  a  spiritual  body."  p.  190. 

(2.)  The  slate  of  the  wicked. 

In  regard  to  this  part  of  the  theory,  I  am  likewise  not  a 
little  puzzled,  and  am  left  wholly  in  the  dark.     For, 

First.  Professor  Bush  denies  that  a  purely  disembodied 
spirit  is  capable  of  subsisting  in  another  world.  "  It  is  com- 
mon to  speak  on  this  subject,"  says  he,  "  as  if  the  soul  were 
mere  abstract  thought — pure  intellection — capable  of  sub- 
sisting in  another  world  in  the  most  absolute  and  isolated 
state,  without  any  hind  of  connexion  with  any  land  of 
body.  But  is  thought  substance?  In  order  to  thought  must 
there  not  be  something  that  thinks? — something  of  which 
thought  is  the  attribute,  and  not  the  essence?  Granted  it  may 
be,  and  must  be,  that  we  are  unable  to  detect  or  define  this 
mysterious  substance ;  but  we  may  still  affirm  that  it  must 
exist,  and  that  no  error  is  greater  than  to  suppose  that 
at  death  the  soul  goes  forth  from  the  body  as  a  bare 
poiaer  of  thought — bodiless  and  formless  mens — which  is 
indeed  in  our  present  constitution  lodged  in  a  body,  but  to 
which  a  body  is  not  necessary,  and  to  which  a  body  is  in 
fact  rather  an  incumbrance.  Now  to  all  this  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  reply,  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  sheer  hypothe- 
sis." p.  72. 

Secondly.  Then  the  Professor  avers  also  that  the  wicked 
still  exist,  and  are  punished  in  eternity;  and 

Thirdly.  That  they  are  in  no  sense  partakers  of  the  re- 
surrection. The  proof  of  both  these  propositions  is  subjoined. 
His  language  is  as  follows  :  "The  idea  that  the  present  body 
must  necessarily  share  in  the  punishment  of  the  sins  which 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  23 

it  was  instrumental  in  committing,  is  one  that  receives  no 
countenance  from  the  decisions  of  sound  reason."  p.  263. 
"  We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  former  case  a  resurrec- 
tion, in  the  true  sense,  is  not  really  affirmed  of  the  wicked. 
They  remain  unawakened."  p.  232.  It  might  be  in  place 
here  to  ask  where  are  the  "  natural  laws"  of  which  we 
have  just  heard  so  much?  Do  not  natural  laws  concern  the 
wicked  1  Again,  he  says,  "  Into  this  vast  assembly,  there- 
fore, of  departed  spirits,  represented  as  being  in  hades,  or 
the  underworld,  his  own  spirit  (Christ's)  descended;  and 
though  the  immense  majority  of  them  were  spirits  of  wicked 
men,  &c."  p.  220.  Of  course  then  the  wicked  live  in  a  fu- 
ture state.     See  also  pp.  254,  277,  312,  313,  332,  392—3. 

Fourthly,  Professor  Bush  teaches,  that  the  wicked  are, 
notwithstanding,  to  have  a  spiritual  body  in  their  future 
state.  He  asserts,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  mortal  body 
does  not  arise;  and  also,  that  our  spiritual  bodies  are  in- 
cluded in  our  corporeal,  and  are  dismissed  therefrom  at 
death ;  then  that  the  wicked  exist  hereafter,  and  that  they 
are  not  partakers  of  a  resurrection;  and  yet,  finally,  that 
they  have  their  future  bodies  eliminated  at  death,  as  well  as 
the  righteous.  "  Their  bodies,"  says  he,  *'  may  become  a 
perpetual  source  of  corroding  pain,  and  of  an  anguish  that 
knows  no  mitigation." — "  Entire  justice  to  the  subject  seems 
to  demand  the  intimation  of  the  probability,  that  the  spiritual 
tenements  of  wicked  men  will  be  moulded  by  their  inward 
character."  p.  395.  See  also  p.  393.  If  any  person  can 
reconcile  all  these  statements,  he  can  do  what  I  cannot. 

4.  Professor  Bush's  theory  as  it  respects  those  who  died 
in  faith  before  the  time  of  Christ. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations,  it  would  appear,  that 
^'-natural  laws,'''*  or  "the  operation  of  the  vital  principle," 
would  require  that  they  rise  from  the  dead,  and  enter  upon 
the  resurrection  stale  immediately  at  death.  If  this  were 
not  so,  then,  on  Professor  Bush's  theory,  they  did  not  arise 
till  the  time  of  Christ.  And  if  they  could  lie  in  the  grave 
till  then  before  they  were  raised,  surely  we  may,  without 
absurdity,  suppose  that  bodies  may  be  dead  till  the  end  of 
time,  and  then  be  raised. 

(1.)  But  Professor  Bush  is  not  to  be  found  tripping  in  this 
way ;  and  therefore,  in  respect  to  those  who  died  before  Christ, 
he  speaks  as  follows:  "  If  there  is  a  palpable,  we  had  almost 
said  unmistakable,  averment  in  the  compass  of  holy  writ, 


24        .  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

it  isj  that  the  true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  proved  from 
the  fact,  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  living  when 
Christ  spake  these  words,  (Matt.  xxii.  31,  32,)  and,  conse- 
quently, must  haxie  been  raised,  and  must  he  living  in  resur- 
rection bodies.'''' — "  What  kind  of  resurrection  is  that  in 
which  nothing  is  raised?  But  their  bodies  certainly  had 
not  been  raised,  and  can  the  sun  in  the  heavens  be  more  ob- 
vious to  the  senses  than  the  conclusion  to  the  mind,  that  the 
*  resurrection  of  the  dead,'  as  here  affirmed  by  the  Saviour, 
has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  resuscitation  of  dead  bo- 
dies? And  are  we  not  justified  in  maintaining,  that  the 
only  resurrection  of  the  dead  ever  to  he  experienced  by 
man,  is  that  of  which  these  patriarchs  have  long  since  been 
the  subjects?  Is  there  more  than  one  resurrection?"  &c. 
pp.  207,  208.     See  also  pp.  164,  218,  224,  226,  247. 

(2.)  And  yet,  though  those  who  died  before  Christ,  arose 
from  the  dead  also  before  him,  they  nevertheless  did  not  rise 
until  after  he  had  arisen.  His  words  are,  "  Then  indeed 
was  the  proper  hour  [when  Christ  expired  on  the  cross]  for 
the  visible  effect  which  was  wrought  upon  their  bodies,  [those 
in  Matt,  xxvii.  50-53,]  in  connexion  with  his  dying  groan, 
the  rending  of  the  rocks,  the  darkening  of  the  sun,  and  the 
throes  of  nature  convulsed;  but  not  then  was  the  time  for 
their  true  and  invisible  resurrection,  for  it  was  designed 
that  '  in  all  things  he  should  have  the  pre-eminence;''  he 
was  to  be  raised  as  'the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept;' 
he  was  to  be  'the  first-begotten  from  the  dead;'  and  it 

BEHOVED    NOT  THAT    THE    RESURRECTION  OF  THE  MEMBERS 

SHOULD  PRECEDE  THAT  OF  THE  Head.  Accordingly,  the 
interval  of  three  days  elapsed  before  they  came  forth,  (the 
mere  bodies  were  not  they,)  and  went  into  the  holy  city 
and  appeared  in  spiritual  vision  to  many  of  their  brethren." 
p.  217.  "  It  was,  in  the  main,  an  invisible  resurrection  of  a 
multitude  of  saints."  p.  218.  On  pages  218,219,  Professor 
Bush  makes  a  vain  attempt  to  show  that  these  views  are  not 
contradictory  to  the  foregoing ;  but  to  reconcile  them  is  as 
difficult  as  to  mingle  into  a  mass  fire  and  powder.  We  shall 
have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  matter  again  hereafter. 

(3.)  Hence  Christ's  precedence  as  the  "  first-born  from  the 
dead,"  and  "  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept,"  is  frittered 
away,  and  resolved  into  a  comparatively  unmeaning  cere- 
mony. The  Old  Testament  saints  had  arisen  before  him, 
but  "had  not  entered  into  the  full  fruition  of  celestial  joys, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  25 

but  were  held,  or,  as  it  were,  detained,  in  a  state  of  ex- 
pectancy, awaiting  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  as 
an  event  which  was  to  usher  in  to  them  a  signal  epoch  of 
enlargement  and  consummation,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it 
j  secured  to  him  the  prerogative  of  having  in  all  things  the 
Vpre-eminence,  and  especially  of  being  the  '  first-fruits  of  them 
^hat  slept.' "  pp.  222,  223.  See  also  218,  219.     This,  then, 
IS  the  pre-eminence  of  Christ !  thus  is  he  "  the  first-born  from 
the  dead  !"  and  thus  is  he  "  the  first  that  should  rise  from 
the  dead  /"  Acts  xxvi.  22,  23. 

5.  Professor  Bush's  theory  touching  the  resurrection  of 
Christ. 

We  have  seen  that  Professor  Bush  teaches,  that,  both 
under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  as  well  as  under  the 
New,  a  spiritual  body  is  eliminated,  or  separated  from  the 
corporeal  at  death.  He  appears  to  make  an  exception  in  the 
case  of  Christ,  but  offers  no  reason  for  the  exception.  But 
I  shall  endeavour  to  present  an  analysis  of  what  he  ad- 
vances on  the  whole  subject,  in  a  chapter  by  itself  here- 
after. 

6.  Professor  Bush's  theory  touching  the  Day  of  Judgment. 
As  the  received  doctrine  of  a  judgment  to  come,  plainly 

infers  the  simultaneousness  of  the  resurrection.  Professor 
Bush  has  found  it  necessary  to  modify  his  views  of  this 
subject. 

In  the  first  place  he  announces,  and  attempts  to  establish 
the  position  that  the  apostles  were  mistaken  in  their  views  of 
"the  last  day,"  or  "judgment  to  come,"  pp.  191-202.  265 
and  269.  He  then  enters  into  a  formal  discussion  of  the 
doctrine  on  pp.  274 — 344.  But  we  shall  consider  this  also 
in  a  chapter  by  itself. 

Here,  then,  is  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  touching  the 
resurrection  and  some  of  its  correlative  doctrines.  We  have 
endeavoured  to  present  his  views  fairly,  that  the  reader  might 
have  them  before  him  in  our  subsequent  investigation.  There 
are  some  other  topics  which  the  Professor  has  introduced  into 
the  discussion,  but  not  being  really  cormected  with  the  one 
before  us,  we  shall  omit  any  reference  to  them  for  the  pre- 
sent. The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  the 
great  point  to  the  consideration  of  which  we  shall  primarily 
confine  ourself  in  this  discussion — though  we  shall  not,  with- 
out remark,  pass  over  the  other  topics  which  Professor  Bush 
has  involved  in  the  controversy. 

3 


26  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

We  shall  close  this  chapter  with  a  brief  history  of  the 
theory  of  the  resurrection  adopted  by  Professor  Bush.  He 
challenges  for  it  the  merit  of  being  new,  and  that  as  such,  it 
must  modify  essentially  the  common  view  of  this  doctrine. 
And  as  we  dispute  and  deny  this  assumption,  so  far  as  the 
novelty  of  the  doctrine  is  concerned,  it  is  not  from  a  desire 
to  present  Professor  Bush  in  an  invidious  light,  that  we 
refer  to  its  history,  but  merely  in  order  to  sustain  the  position 
we  assume. 

With  respect  to  this  theory,  the  Professor  acknowledges 
that  it  is  the  same  substantially  as  that  which  was  enter- 
tained by  Swedenborg,  though  he  claims  to  have  arrived  at 
his  conclusions  by  an  independent  process.  But  the  theory 
is  much  older  than  Swedenborg,  as  the  following  facts  de- 
monstrate. 

SECTION  II, 

History  of  Professor  Bush's  Theory. 

(1.)  Perhaps  as  a  faithful  and  impartial  historian,  we 
ought  to  begin  with  primitive  times,  and  with  the  record 
found  in  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  16-19,  "of  whom  is 
Hymeneus  and  Philetus.  Who  concerning  the  truth  have 
erred,  saying  that  the  resurrection  is  past  already;"  as  it  is 
evident  that  they  could  have  predicated  this  resurrection  of 
those  only  who  had  already  lived,  and  not  of  those  who  were 
to  live;  and  that  their  theory,  therefore,  must  have  borne  a 
striking  resemblance  to  that  of  Professor  Bush:  but  as  this 
might  appear  invidious,  and  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
consider  these  passages  hereafter,  we  shall  pass  it  by  for  the 
present. 

(2.)  The  next  prominent  advocate  of  this  theory  is  Avicen, 
the  Mohammedan  philosopher.  In  his  Almahad  he  advances 
the  doctrine  of  Professor  Bush  precisely,  and  employs  some 
of  his  arguments  to  sustain  it.  He  says  that  "  the  meaning 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  nothing  else  but  this,  to 
persuade  vulgar  people,  that  though  they  seem  to  perish, 
when  they  die,  and  their  bodies  rot  in  the  grave;  yet,  not- 
withstanding, they  shall  have  a  real  subsistence  after  death, 
by  which  they  shall  be  made  capable  either  of  future  happi- 
ness or  misery.  But  because  the  apprehensions  of  the  vul- 
gar are  so  gross,  that  the  permanency  and  immortality  of 
the  soul  is  too  subtile  a  notion  for  them,  who  commonly 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  27 

count  their  bodies  for  themselves,  and  cannot  conceive,  how 
they  should  have  any  being  after  death,  unless  their  very 
bodies  should  be  raised  up  again ;  therefore,  by  way  of  con- 
descension to  vulgar  understandings,  the  future  permanency 
and  subsistence  of  the  soul,  in  prophetical  writings,  is  ex- 
pressed under  this  scheme  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
which  yet  is  meant  **Ta  6i^!tv  only,  and  not  xat'  atx«9g;av."  See 
Cudworth^s  Second  Sermon^  at  the  end  of  his  Intellectual 
System,  vol.  ii,,  p.  605. 

Now  this  doctrine  of  the  Mohammedan  philosopher  Avicen, 
and  which  his  philosophy  tavght  him  so  many  centuries 
ago,  is  the  very  doctrine  which  Professor  Bush  has,  as  he 
professes,  by  the  great  advance  of  scientific  investigation  in 
the  nineteenth  century  evolved  by  his  philosophy,  and  by 
means  of  which  he  would  correct  the  views  of  the  Christian 
church  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection.  But  let  us  see 
what  Cudworth  himself  thinks  of  this  theory  of  Avicen. 
After  making  the  foregoing  quotation  from  the  Almahad,  he 
remarks  as  follows :  "  Which  conceit,  how  well  soever  it 
may  hejit  a  Mahometan  philosopher,  lam  sure  it  in  no  way 
agrees  with  the  principles  of  Christianity ;  the  Scripture 
here  (Rom.  viii.  11,)  and  elsewhere  assuring  us,  that  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  is  to  be  understood  plainly  and 
without  a  figure;  and  that  the  saints,  departed  this  life  in  the 
faith  and  fear  of  Christ,  shall  not  be  mere  souls  without  bo- 
dies to  all  eternity,  as  Avicen,  Maimonides,  and  other  phi- 
losophers dreamed,  but  consist  of  soul  and  body  united  to- 
gether. Which  bodies,  though,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  church 
instructeth  us,  they  shall  be  both  specifically  and  numerically 
the  same,  with  what  they  were  here;  yet,  notwithstanding, 
the  Scripture  tells  us,  they  shall  be  so  changed  and  altered, 
in  respect  of  their  qualities  and  conditions,  that  in  that  sense 
they  shall  not  be  the  same."  Cudworth,  ii.,  p.  605,  606. 

(3.)  Nihusius,  who  was  born  in  the  latter  part  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  was  titular  bishop  of  Mysia  and  suffragan 
archbishop  of  Metz,  was  a  zealous  Papist;  and  was  very  de- 
sirous to  establish  the  doctrines  of  the  Romish  Church  on  phi- 
losophical principles.  Among  others  he  thus  endeavoured  to 
defend  the  doctrine  of  the  invocation  of  the  Saints;  and  in 
doing  this  he,  by  an  "  independent  process,"  arrived  at  the 
very  theory  of  Professor  Bush.  He  said  that  "  the  Saints 
who  have  departed  this  life,  are  not  dead,  but  still  live  in  re- 
spect of  their  bodies  and  ought  therefore  to  be  adored  in  their 


28  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

relics."  This  thought  he  called  "  a  divine  oracle  and  a 
clear  light  into  a  profound  mystery."  And  says,  "  that  the 
fact  that  the  saints  in  paradise  still  live  in  their  bodies,  de- 
velopes  a  sublimer  philosophy  in  respect  of  sleeping  and 
waking,  than  that  of  Aristotle  and  the  other  philosophers." 
And  not  only  so  but  he  charged  those  with  atheism  who 
would  not  assent  to  his  theory,  and  pretended  that  they  who 
deny  that  the  bodies  of  the  saints  are  living  in  paradise, 
destroy  at  the  bottom  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 
"  Quoniam  itaque  Sancti  suis  in  corporibus  adhuc  vivunt, 
certatim  nos  illuc  agglomeremur,  et  adoremus  amorosissime, 
spem  resurrectionis  nostrse  simul  quasi  satiantes,  et  mortis 
metum  puerilem  abjicientes,  nequaquam  vero  superbe  quic- 
quam  ejus  respuentes;  hsereseos  ac  atheismi  pars  est,  opinio 
ilia  feralis  et  luctuosa,  de  mortuis  ac  non  viventibus  Sanc- 
torum corporibus,  utpote  resurrectionem  impie  negans  in 
recessu."* 

Bayle  (to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  this  quotation,)  adds 
the  following  remark,  with  reference  to  the  foregoing  senti- 
ment :  "  From  what  I  have  set  forth  in  this  remark,  we  may 
conclude,  that  Nihusius  was  one  of  those  lively,  presump- 
tuous men,  who  easily  suffer  themselves  to  be  dazzled  by  the 
false  lustre  of  a  paradox,  and  labour  with  eagerness  to  com- 
municate to  all  the  world  their  impressions.  They  magnify 
the  ideas  of  small  things,"  &c.f 

(4.)  The  Anabaptists  of  the  16th  century,  also  denied,  as 
Professor  Bush  does,  that  Christ  ascended  to  heaven  with 
his  material  body;  and,  like  him,  asserted  that  the  New 
Testament  does  not  teach  this  doctrine :  "  Verum  quae  quan- 
titate,  aut  qualitate,  et  quo  modo,  in  illo  corpore  sedeat  ad 
dexteram  Patris,  quandoquidem  de  eo  nobis  non  liquet  testi- 
monium in  scriptura  sacra,  malumus  hie  ignorantiam  nos- 
tram  profiteri,  quam  incerta  divinatione  uti  extra  Dei  ver- 
bum."  Confes.  Art.  IX.  And  their  philosophy,  like  that  of 
Professor  Bush,  led  them  to  confound  the  abolishing  of 
hunger^  and  thirst,  and  weariness,  and  sorrow,  and  sus- 
ceptibility of  suffering,  and  mortality,  with  the  abolition  of 
corporeal  properties, — "  proprietatum  corporearum." 

(5.)  The  Polish  Socinians  also  were  advocates  of  the 
more  prominent  parts  of  Professor  Bush's  theory.     In  their 

*  Andreas  Carolus,  Memor.  Ecclesiast.  Saeculi  XVII.    Lib.  II.  cap. 
18,  pag.  352. 
i  See  Ba,yle,  ATt.  Nihusius,  sub  Jine. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  29 

"  Compendiolum  Socinianismi"  or  "  Confession  of  the  So- 
cinian  Churches,"  Amst.  1598,  they  speak  as  follows: 
"  Concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  our  churches 
teach,  in  the  Jirst  place,  that  the  faithful,  who  have  died 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  shall  be  raised  from  the 
dead  at  the  last  day;  but  not  the  wicked.  And  they  prove 
it  from  1  Thess.  iv.,  and  1  Cor.  xv.,  John  vi.,  and  Luke  xx., 
where  the  resurrection  is  asserted  only  of  Christians  or  the 
faithful ;  whether  they  have  been  just,  that  is,  have  lived 
righteously  all  their  life,  as,  for  example,  John  the  Baptist 
and  his  parents :  or  unjust;  that  is,  have  lived  wickedly 
all  their  life,  and  were  at  length  converted,  as  the  publican 
and  the  thief  on  the  cross.  Luke  xxiii.  Secondly.  Then 
they  deny  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  (carnis,)  that  is,  of 
this  body  itself  which  is  constituted  of  flesh  and  blood.  But 
they  admit  that  bodies  will  be  raised  again ;  that  is,  that  those 
faithful  men  will  be  raised,  and  shall  then  be  clothed  with 
new  heavenly  bodies  :  which  is  proved  by  1  Cor.  xv.,  where 
it  is  said,  that  it  is  not  the  same  body  which  was  sown,  that  is, 
per  seminis  traducemgeneratur,  which  is  raised ;  but  another, 
to  wit,  an  immortal,  glorious,  and  spiritual  body.  Such  is  the 
antithesis  in  2  Cor.  v.,  (in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,)  be- 
tween the  earthly  tabernacle,  and  the  celestial  building.  For 
God  will  make  us  "  like  the  angels,^''  (Luke  xx.,)  and  will 
abolish  the  belly,  with  all  things  which  appertain  to  this 
animal  life,  (1  Cor.  vi.,)  for  then  there  shall  be  no  use  for 
them.  Thirdly.  They  teach  also  that  the  faithful  who  are 
alive,  shall  then  suddenly  be  changed ;  in  the  twinkling  of 
an  eye,  (1  Cor.  xv.,)  lest  the  changing  of  their  bodies,  or 
the  abolishing  of  the  flesh,  should  give  them  pain.  Then 
man  shall  no  more  be  a  living  soul,  (Gen.  ii.,)  but  a  quick- 
ened spirit ;  that  is,  his  life  thereafter  shall  not  be  animal, 
but  spiritual.  So  that  it  may  be  in  his  power  to  have  eternal 
life,  as  Christ  himself,  who  shall  conform  our  bodies  to  his 
glorious  body."     See  Compend.  Socinianismi,  cap.  VIIL 

(6.)  The  next  prominent  advocates  of  a  part  of  this  theory 
were  some  Arminians  of  the  17th  century.  They  profess, 
however,  only  to  entertain  doubts,  whether  the  resurrection 
body  was  identically  the  same  with  the  body  that  died.  Their 
views  may  be  seen  in  their  "  Apologia  pro  Confess.  Remon- 
strantium,"  cap.  XIX.,  p.  219,  or  in  0pp.  Episcopii,  tom. 
i.,  part  II.,  pag.  219.  Mr.  Locke  also  appears  to  have  en- 
tertained the  same  view.     He  believed  in  the  resurrection 

3* 


30  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  a  material  body,  (which,  however.  Professor  Bush  denies,) 
but  doubted  its  identity  with  the  body  that  had  died.  The 
same  philosophical  notions  entertained  by  Avicen,  the  Mo- 
hammedan, on  this  subject,  seem  to  have  been  adopted  by 
these  writers,  though  with  some  modification. 

(7.)  But  in  Emanuel  Swedenborg,  we  find  a  strong  advo- 
cate of  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush  in  its  most  important 
features.  In  his  Treatise  Concerning  Heaven  and  Hell, 
from  §  432  to  §  461,  may  be  found  a  pretty  full  statement  and 
illustration  of  his  theory.  See  also  his  "  Universal  Theology 
of  the  New  Church,"  vol.  i.,  p.  238,  §  156.  But  the  fact 
that  Professor  Bush,  since  the  publication  of  his  "  Anastasis,^^ 
has  become  an  avowed  Swedenborgian,  renders  it  unneces- 
sary for  us  to  confirm  this  statement  by  quotations.  See 
also  ^^  Anastasisj''  p.  76. 

(8.)  The  next  conspicuous  advocates  of  Professor  Bush's 
theory  are  the  Shakers.  And  in  their  ^^  Summary  View  of 
the  Millennial  Church  or  United  Society  of  Believers,  com- 
monly called  Shakers,^''  Albany,  1823,  we  have  not  only 
the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  almost  entire,  but  we  have 
his  very  arguments,  illustrations,  and  criticisms  upon  Scrip- 
ture passages.  There  is  an  astonishing  resemblance  through- 
out. We  can  give  but  an  abstract  here,  and  must  refer  to  the 
book  itself  for  full  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  assertion. 

The  following  are  a  few  extracts :  "  The  resurrection  is  a 
doctrine  generally  believed  by  all  who  profess  a  belief  in  the 
Christian  religion.  But  what  constitutes  the  real  nature  and 
substance  of  the  resurrection,  seems  to  be  a  dispute  among 
many.  The  most  general  and  popular  belief  is,  that  the 
natural  body  of  man,  consisting  of  flesh,  and  blood,  and 
bones,  after  being  divested  of  the  spirit  or  living  soul,  and 
consigned  to  the  grave,  will,  at  a  certain  future  period  of 
time,  be  raised  from  the  dust  of  the  earth,  with  which  it  has 
been  blended  by  dissolution,  and  be  reanimated  with  the 
same  living  spirit,  and  arraigned  before  the  judgment-seat 
of  Christ,  there  to  be  judged  and  consigned  to  a  state  of  ever- 
lasting happiness  or  misery.  This  doctrine  is  generally 
believed  to  accord  strictly  with  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  therefore  supposed  to  be  well  founded.  To 
eradicate  these  long  established  impressions,  and  convince 
mankind  that  they  are  erroneous  and  antichristian,  and  not 
taught  by  divine  revelation,  is  a  task  of  no  small  magnitude." 
p.   302.     Then  after  quoting  John  v.  28,   29,   it  is   said 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  31 

"  many  other  passages  might  be  added  in  proof  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  soul ;  but  all  this  has  no  reference  to  the  na- 
tural  body,  except  as  a  figure.''''  p.  303.  And  after  quoting 
John  xi.  25,  26,  it  is  added,  "  If  then,  Christ  is  the  resurrec- 
tion and  the  life,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  all  who  are  in 
Christ,  are  in  the  resurrection,  whether  their  bodies  be  dead 
or  living.  And  also,  if  he  that  believeth  in  Christ,  shall  live, 
though  his  body  be  dead ;  then  it  must  be  the  soul  to  which 
Christ  had  reference :  for  the  dead  body  of  a  man  cannot 
believe,  any  more  than  the  dead  carcass  of  any  other  ani- 
mal."    Ibid, 

"  Hence  it  is  clearly  evident  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
natural  body,  after  its  return  to  the  dust,  is  not  necessary  to 
constitute  that  kind  of  resurrection  to  which  Christ  alluded." 
Ibid.  "  The  natural  body  of  man  is  corruptible.  If  then, 
as  some  say,  it  is  to  be  so  transformed  as  to  become  incor- 
ruptible, then  corruption  must  inherit  incorruption ;  which  is 
contrary  to  the  apostle's  express  declaration."  pp.  303,  304. 

Then  in  respect  to  the  resurrection  of  Christy  they  ad- 
vance precisely  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush.  ♦'  The  resur- 
rection of  the  natural  body  of  man,  is  strongly  argued  from 
the  supposed  resurrection  of  the  natural  body  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  is  thought  to  be  established  beyond  dispute,  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  found  in  the  sepulchre  where  it  was  laid, 
and  by  several  particular  circumstances  connected  with  his 
appearance  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection."  Then 
after  quoting  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  Luke  xxiv.  39,  40,  John  xx. 
26,  27,  they  add,  "  These  passages  have  been  carefully  ex- 
amined and  fully  answered  by  brother  John  Dunlavy,  of 
Kentucky,*  and  therefore  it  is  less  necessary  to  enlarge  upon 
the  subject  here.  But  it  may  not  be  improper  to  make  a 
^Qw  remarks  for  the  reader's  consideration." 

The  conclusion  of  this  chapter  is  as  follows,  and  one 
rnight  easily  take  it  for  an  extract  from  Professor  Bush's 
work :  "  Thus  we  may  see  that  the  true  resurrection  con- 
sists in  the  rising  again  of  the  spiritual  part  of  manyrom  the 
terrestrial  elements,  into  which  it  has  been  sown  by  genera- 

*  This  "  Examination"  and  '•  answer''''  to  the  apostles  (!)  is  styled 
^^ Dunlavy'' s  Manifesto"  printed  at  Pleasant  Hill,  Kentucky,  1818. 
A  reference  to  it  will  show  that  Professor  Bush's  late  "  results'^  of 
scientific  investigation,  and  his  new  criticisms,  have  been  anticipated 
by  a  Kentuckian,  nearly  thirty  years  ago ;  to  say  nothing  of  Avicen, 
^ihusius,  &c. 


32  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

tion,*  to  the  celestial.  By  the  operalion  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  it  is  formed  into  a  celes- 
tial and  heavenly  body,  endowed  with  immortality  and  eter- 
nal life,  and  thus  it  becomes  an  everlasting  inhabitant  of  the 
celestial  world  ;  and  thus  it  is  that  *  this  corruptible  puts 
on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  immortality.'  "  &c.,  &c. 
p.  313. 

There  is  the  same  substantial  agreement  between  their 
views  and  those  of  Professor  Bush  respecting  the  judgment. 
"  But  what  is  this  day  of  judgment?  and  in  what  manner  is 
it  to  be  brought  about  ?  These  are  questions  of  no  small 
concern  to  mankind,  and  especially  to  those  who  profess  the 
Christian  religion.  Many  who  call  themselves  Christians, 
are  firm  and  confident  in  the  belief,  that  the  day  of  judgment 
is  a  certain  appointed  day,  yet  future,  when  the  Lord  Jesus 
will  suddenly  descend,  and  personally  appear,"  &c.,  &c. 
"  But,  we  would  ask,  how  these  ideas  of  the  day  of  judg- 
ment can  be  reconciled  with  the  opinion  generall}'  enter- 
tained by  these  same  sort  of  Christians,  that  the  final  and 
everlasting  fate  of  the  soul  is  decided  at  the  hour  of  death  ?" 
"  If  the  day  of  probation  ends  at  death,  and  the  fate  of  the 
soul  is  then  unalterably  fixed,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
these  Christians,  what  can  be  the  object  of  a  day  of  judg- 
ment of  the  preceding  description  ?"| — "  But  we  view  the 

*  "  'It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.'  "  Here 
he  refers  to  the  origin  of  these  two  bodies.--"  The  sowing  is  our  birth 
in  Adam,  or  in  the  nature  of  Adam,"  &c.  "  So  far  is  the  apostle  from 
teaching  that  the  body  is  '  sown'  by  being  deposited  in  the  grave.  It 
is  sown  at  its  birth,  and  not  at  its  death."     AnastasiSy  pp.  185,  186. 

t  "  No  article  of  any  creed  in  Christendom  is  more  universally  or 
unhesitatingly  held,  than  that  each  individual  enters  at  death  upon  an 
eternal  state  of  retribution.  According  to  the  prevailing  moral  cha- 
racter in  which  be  makes  his  exit  from  the  body,  he  either  soars  an 
angel  or  sinks  a  fiend.  Lazarus  died,  and  was  carried  by  angels  to 
Abraham's  bosom.  The  rich  man  also  died,  and  in  hell  he  lifted  up 
his  eyes,  being  in  torment.  This  is  a  virtual  judgment."  Anastasis, 
p.  277.  And  the  author  proceeds  to  say,  that  "  an  act  of  the  divine 
adjudication,  which  seals  to  the  joys  of  heaven  or  the  woes  of  hell  a 
departing  spirit,  is  as  truly  an  award  of  eternal  judgment,  as  if  it  were 
pronounced  from  the  great  white  throne."  Ibid.  But  it  seems  not  to 
have  occurred  to  these  gentlemen,  that,  unless  the  soul's  existence  is 
suspended  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  it  must  of  necessity  be 
either  in  happiness  or  misery.  Again:  Professor  Bush  remarks,  "  the 
judgment  runs  parallel  with  the  kingdom"  of  Christ,  p.  280.  "The 
inference  is  certainly  strong  from  all  this,"  says  he,  "that  the  'sitting 
at  the  Father's  right  hand,'  and  the  'judgment,'  are  synchronical,  and 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  33 

day  of  judgment  in  a  very  different  light  from  all  this.  We 
view  it  as  a  work  which  has  already  commenced." — "  And 
though  gradual  and  progressive  in  its  operations,  it  is  certain 
and  effectual ;  and  will  continue  to  increase  in  power,  till  a 
full  and  final  separation  shall  be  made  between  good  and 
evil."  pp.  314,  315. — "The  judgment  is  already  set,  and 
the  books  are  opening,  and  all  flesh  shall  be  judged  accord- 
ing to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body."  p.  316.  Compare  also 
Anastasis,  pp.  320-323. 

(9.)  The  next  leading  advocates  of  Professor  Bush's 
theory,  are  the  Neologists  or  Rationalists  of  Germany. 

One  of  the.  fairest  representatives  of  this  school,  is  Weg- 
scheider;  a  man,  who,  to  such  a  degree  entertains  the  idea 
that  "  the  knowledge  of  revelation  is  progressive"  that  he 
has  not  only  arrived  at  the  same  conclusions  as  Professor 
Bush,  with  respect  to  the  resurrection,  but,  as  Tholuck  re- 
marks, thinks  that  "  all  wisdom  has  come  into  the  world 
since  1780."* 

After  presenting  a  fair  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  as  advanced  in  the  New  Testament,  he  pro- 
ceeds with  his  objections  to  it.  He  remarks  that  there  are 
many  very  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  reconciling  it 
with  sound  reason.  He  then  asserts  that  the  idea  of  the 
resurrection  owes  its  origin  to  the  lame  and  imperfect  notions 
of  rude  men,  who  were  destitute  of  any  right  idea  of  God, 
and  who  imagined  that  because  they  exist  in  this  world,  they 
should  also  exist  hereafter.  This  notion,  says  he,  was  held 
by  many  barbarous  nations,  and  was  taught  by  Zoroaster, 
from  whom  the  Jews  appear  to  have  obtained  it.  Then,  as 
the  apostles  obtained  it  from  the  Jews,  it  is  so  interwoven 
with  the  Jewish  opinions  respecting  the  Messiah,  and  with 
the  narrative  concerning  Jesus  being  restored  to  life,  that  it 
can  neither  be  rightly  understood  nor  explained,  except  from 

refer  to  the  administration  of  an  earthly  kingdom,  and  that  a  personal 
and  visible  manifestation  is  not  to  be  understood  in  regard  to  either.^* 
pp.  294,  295. 

Thus  singularly  harmonious,  even  in  their  minutiae,  is  the  theory  of 
the  Shakers  and  that  of  Professor  Bush,  though,  no  doubt,  each  ar- 
rived at  it  by  "a  purely  independent  process.''  See  Anastasis,  Pre- 
face, p.  viii. 

*  See  Am.  Biblic.  Repository,  vol.  II.,  p.  208,  for  1832.  Professor 
Stuart  speaks  of  Wegscheider  as  follows;  "Wegscheider  and  Rohr, 
each  in  a  different  way,  may  be  considered  as  the  present  Coryphcei 
of  the  Neological  party  in  Germany."  Biblic.  Repos.  I.,  p.  60. 


34  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

an  acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  that  age;  on  which 
account  ihe  later  defenders  of  the  more  ancient  formula  have 
hesitated  to  receive,  in  their  literal  or  proper  sense,  all  the 
words  of  the  Scriptures  pertaining  to  the  subject.  Then, 
again,  it  is  not  possible  to  understand  how  the  particles  of 
this  body  can  be  collected  and  restored,  after  having  been 
changed  into  so  many  other  forms,  and  scattered  into  other 
human  bodies,"  &c.,  &c.  Thus  he  proceeds  with  his  pre- 
posterous farrago,  and  thinks  he  is  writing  like  Pliny  the 
naturalist.   The  original  in  full  will  be  found  in  the  margin.* 

*  Tantum  vero  abest,  ut  resurrectio  corporum  cum  sante  rationes 
pra3ceptis  bene  conciliari  possit,  ut  plurimis  gravissimisque  impediatur 
difficultatibus.  Primum  enim  dubitari  nequit,  quin  hsec  opinio  e  no- 
tionibus  mancis  et  imperfectis  hominum  incultiorum  originemtraxerit, 
quippe  qui,  justa  numenis  divini  idea  destituti,  vitam  post  mortem  fu- 
turame  sola  vitae  terrestris  natura  fingere  soleant;  quo  fit,  ut  apud 
complures  gentes  barbaras,  itemque  in  Zoroastrica  disciplina,  e  cujus 
fonte  Judaei  ipsi  hausisse  videntur,  eadem  ilia  deprehendatur.  Deinde 
resurrectio  corporum  in  11.  N.  T.  tradita,  quae  inde  ab  ipsa  apostolica 
ffitate  (1  Cor.  xv.  12 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  ]  7,)  baud  paucis  improbata  fuit,  tam 
arte  conjuncta  cernitur  cum  opinionibus  de  Messia  Judaicis  et  cum 
narratione  de  Jesu  in  vitam  restituto,  (1  Cor.  xv.  12,)  ut  nisi  ex 
ingenio  seculiillius  recte  judicari  et  explicarinon  possit;  quamobrera 
ipsi  antiquioris  formulae  defensores  recentiores,  parum  quidem  con- 
stanter,  omnium  scripturae  s.  dictorum  buc  pertinentium,  (v.  c.  1 
Thess.  iv.  16,  ubi  Kikivcr/uct  kai  <pa)V»  dp^ctyyihov,  o-dhTriy^  Qiov  commemo- 
rantur,)  sensum  proprium  admittere  dubitarunt.  Turn  non  intelligitur, 
quomodo  particulae  hujus  corporis  in  tot  alia  et  ipsa  humana  corpora 
dispersae  et  mutatae  colligi  possint  ac  restitui,  etc.  Wegscheider^s 
Dog.  Theol.  §.  195,  p.  675.  Halse,  1833. 

Tben  again  he  says,  in  almost  the  very  language  of  Professor 
Bush,  "His  et  aliis  ducti  ralionibus  baud  fere  levioribus,  vel  Jesuin, 
ubi  doctrinam  de  resurrectione  proposuisse  perhibetur,  popularium 
consuetudinem  loquendi  esse  secutum,  vel  potius  discipulos  ipsi  tan- 
quam  MessioB,  cujus  provinciam  e  vulgaribus  Judaeorum  commentis 
et  quibusdam  ejus  dictis  allegoricis  atque  obscurioribus  perperam  ju- 
dicarent,  ejusmodi  sententiam  ex  suis  subjecisse  censemus;  neque 
dubitamus,  doctrina  de  resurrectione  corporum  tanquam  imarrine 
reviviscendi  post  mortem  proposita  eademque  ad  sententiam  universa- 
lem  ei  substratam  de  novo  aliquo  vitae  stadio  eoque  perfectiore  post 
mortem  homini  ineundo  revocata,  in  simpliciore  ilia  N.  T.  de  im- 
mortalitate  institutione  acquiescere,  qua  animum  post  mortem  statim 
novam  in  alio  rerum  initurum  esse  vitam  eandemque  veram  et  ac- 
tuosam  edocemur."  p.  676.  And  he  quotes  Kant  (whose  philosophy 
has  filled  Germany  with  infidelity,)  as  saying,  "^  resurrection  of  the 
body  is  neither  possible  nor  necessary :  what  do  we  want  with  these 
calcareous  earths  in  the  next  world  ?"  Kantius  alicubi  dixit :  "  Eine 
Auferstehung  des  leibes  ist  weder  mOglich,  noch  nOthig;  was  soli 
diese  Kalkerde  in  der  andern  welt?"  This  is  Professor  Bush's  "Ar- 
gument from  Reason"  in  a  nutshell, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  35 

I  had  intended  to  quote  Ammon,  Summa,  §.  196,  and  201, 

in  which  Professor  Bush's  theory  is  stated  and  assserted, 
but  think  sufficient  has  been  said  on  this  topic. 

The  Rationalists  present  the  same  view  of  the  day  of 
judgment  as  Professor  Bush  does  in  his  "  Anastasis."  Take 
an  instance  from  Wegscheider.  He  says,  that  "  the  doc- 
trine originated  in  Jewish  maxims  and  allegories  respecting 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  resuscitation  of  the  dead; 
and  is  also  accommodated  to  the  style  and  method  of  a  hu- 
man judiciary.  Hence  it  is,  that  the  clouds  in  which  the 
Messiah  is  conveyed  are  mentioned,  and  the  archangel  with 
the  trumpet  and  full  attendance  of  angels,  the  convocation  of 
all  mankind,  both  of  the  dead  and  of  those  who  are  then 
living,  (who  shall  be  changed  as  well  as  those  who  have  been 
a  long  time  dead,)  the  tribunal  of  the  Judge,  the  books  opened 
and  examined,  the  examination  of  every  one,  and  the  sen- 
tence pronounced,"  &c.     See  p.  680,  ).  196. 

Again  he  says  that  "  this  doctrine  which  seems  to  be  con- 
veyed in  the  words  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  though  it  may 
exert  a  salutary  influence  upon  uncultivated  minds,  it  yet 
labours  under  the  same,  and  almost  greater  difficulties  than 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection."  And  after  stating  some 
of  these  "  weighty  difficulties,"  (which  a  Sabbath  school 
scholar  could  easily  obviate,)  he  proceeds  to  suggest  that 
this  "symbolic  language"  should  be  applied  to  the  preva- 
lence of  Christ's  kingdom  and  truth  on  earth.  That  is,  as 
Professor  Bush  remarks,  *'  the  judgment  runs  parallel  with 
the  kingdom."  Anastasis,  p.  280.  See  also  Bretschnei- 
der^s,  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik,  vol.  II.  pp.  427,  429,  §.  171. 

I  could  easily  extend  this  historical  disquisition  to  almost 
any  length,  but  it  certainly  is  not  necessary.  From  the 
brief  abstract  here  given,  however,  every  reader  will  see 
with  what  little  reason  Professor  Bush  has  calculated  upon 
presenting  the  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment  in 
such  an  aspect,  as  must  result  in  an  ultimate  and  entire  re- 
modification  of  our  views  in  reference  to  them.  Thus  did 
the  Jesuit  Nihusius  more  than  two  hundred  years  ago  calcu- 
late; and  so  with  the  Anabaptists  and  Socinians;  so  too  with 
the  Shakers  and  Rationalists,  to  say  nothing  of  Swedenborg 
and  his  followers;  but  their  calculations  hitherto  have  been 
too  sanguine,  whatever  may  be  the  result. of  Professor  Bush's 
adoption  of  their  theory. 

I  feel,  however,  imperiously  called  upon  by  a  sense  of 


36  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

duty,  before  leaving  this  topic  to  ask,  why  has  Professor 
Bush,  without  giving  any  notice  of  it,  come  forward  with 
this  bold  advocacy  of  the  old  exploded  theories  of  the  Polish 
Socinians  and  Gernnan  Rationalists?  Why  has  he  done  it? 
I  cannot  for  a  moraent  suspect  that  a  man  of  his  respectable 
attainments  in  literature,  and  who  has  for  I  know  not  how 
long,  been  reading  the  later  German  writers  as  well  as  those 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  should  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
his  theory  was  but  a  cast-off  garment  of  skeptics  and  semi- 
infidels.  Why  then  should  he  pass  it  off  as  a  new  and  in- 
dependent discovery?  And  if  he  has  discovered  that  the 
Reformed  Church  was  in  error  when  it  opposed  the  Anabap- 
tists and  Socinians,  and  that  the  evangelical  party  in  Ger- 
many is  wrong  in  its  oppositions  to  the  neologists,  why  has 
he  not  stated  this  fact,  and  presented  his  refutation  of  their 
arguments  ?  But  if  he  were  not  aware  of  the  paternity  of 
his  theory  and  principles  of  interpretation,  let  him  learn 
hereafter  not  to  press  his  speculations  upon  the  public  with 
such  pertinacity  and  high  claims  to  originality. 

But  having  now  presented  the  Historia  Dogmatis,  as  the 
German  theologians  say,  we  shall  in  the  next  place  proceed 
to  the  Epicrisis, 


CHAPTER  III. 

PROFESSOR    bush's   ARGUMENT   FROM    REASON   CONSIDERED. 


SECTION  I. 

Introduction. 

I  SHALL  thoroughly  review  Professor  Bush's  "argument 
from  reason,"  for  it  is  the  foundation  upon  which  he  has 
based  his  whole  theory.  And  it  is  by  the  light  elicited  from 
this  argument  that  he  proposes  to  dissipate  the  darkness 
which  is  supposed  to  envelope  those  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  inculcate  rather  obviously  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body. 

From  the  flourish  of  trumpets  and  the  clangor  of  arms 
with  which  this   argument  makes  its  appearance  in  the 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  37 

"  Anastasis,"  one  might,  not  unreasonably  suppose  that  va- 
liant deeds  were  about  to  be  achieved ;  and  that  both  rank 
and  file  of  the  opposing  columns  were  to  be  as  utterly  de- 
molished as  the  "  missing  regiment "  of  Napoleon  at  the 
battle  of  Preuss-Eylau.  For  seldom  have  we  met  with  a 
more  splendid  array  of  argumentation  and  illustration,  than 
that  which  composes  the  advance-guard  of  this  argument, 
and  by  which  the  Professor  has  undertaken  to  demonstrate 
that  the  knowledge  of  revelation  is  progressive. 

In  discussing  the  argument  from  reason,  therefore,  it  is 
proper  that  we  should  begin  by  a  thorough  analysis  and  con- 
sideration of  this  its  *^ Introduction.^^  It  is  found  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Professor  Bush's  work ;  and  in  the  following  ex- 
tracts therefrom,  the  Professor  will  speak  for  himself,  and 
present  the  incipient  steps  of  his  argument  in  his  own  forci- 
ble language. 

After  laying  down  the  proposition  that  "  the  knowledge  of 
revelation  is  progressive,"  he  proceeds  as  follows : 

'*  The  proposition  which  is  virtually  embodied  in  the  head- 
ing of  the  present  section,  flows  by  natural  sequence  from 
the  general  and  universally  admitted  truth,  that  the  human 
race  itself  is  progressive,  not  merely  in  physical  continuity, 
but  in  mental  development.  That  our  collective  humanity, 
like  each  individual  that  composes  it,  passes  through  a  child- 
hood, a  youth,  and  a  meridian  manhood,  can  scarcely  be  a 
question  with  any  one  who  casts  his  eye  at  the  page  of  his- 
tory or  the  universal  analogies  of  nature.  We  should  be  far 
from  doing  violence  to  truth,  should  we  slightly  alter  the 
poetic  aphorism,  and  read — '  Progress  is  heaven's  first  law.' 
If  so,  the  thesis  may  stand  unassailable,  that  the  knowledge 
of  Revelation,  like  that  of  Nature,  is  destined  to  be  con- 
tinually on  the  advance  So  far  as  the  latter  is  concerned 
it  will  not  be  denied  by  the  reflecting  mind,  that  even  at  this 
period  of  the  world  man  has  arrived  but  at  the  threshold  of 
that  august  temple  of  Truth  into  which  he  is  called  to  enter, 
and  to  become  a  worshipper  at  its  inmost  shrines.  He  is 
now  in  the  scene  of  his  pupilage — in  the  lowest  forms  of  that 
school  in  which  he  has  been  set  to  learn  the  lessons  of  the 
universe. 

"  In  this  capacity  he  has  two  great  volumes  placed  before 
him  which  are  to  be  the  theme  of  his  perpetual  pondering — 
the  volume  of  Nature  and  the  volume  of  Revelation.  In  re- 
gard to  both  these  volumes  we  know  not  how  to  resist  the 

4 


38  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

belief  that  the  same  great  law  holds  good,  viz:  o£  gradual 
development  y 

Then  after  furnishing  several  brief  illustrations  of  this 
proposition,  he  proceeds  as  follows: 

"  We  repeat,  then,  our  main  position,  that  our  knowledge 
of  the  contents  of  revelation  is  destined  to  be  progressive ; 
and  in  support  of  this  position  we  certainly  have  the  advan- 
tage of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  general  analogy  of 
Nature  and  of  Providence.  Throughout  the  whole  range  of 
creation  we  recognise  the  perpetual  presence  and  operation 
of  this  great  law.  The  principle  of  progressive  advance 
from  the  imperfect  to  the  finished — from  the  rude  to  the  re- 
fined— from  the  infantile  to  the  mature — from  primordial 
elements  to  elaborate  formations — from  tender  germs  to 
ripened  fruits — from  initial  workings  to  ultimate  consumma- 
tions— is  every  where  apparent;  and  why  should  it  not  hold 
here  also  ?  If  progress  is  heaven's  law  in  every  other  sphere 
of  observation,  the  presumption  certainly  is  that  there  is  no 
exception  here;  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  affirm  the  fact, 
unless  some  adequate  reason  can  be  previousl}'  assigned  for 
questioning  or  denying  it." 

He  then  proposes  and  discusses  the  question,  "  whether  it 
is  probable  that  obscurities  will  always  remain  to  cloud 
the  lustre  of  the  word  of  God?"  Whether  they  do  really 
"  cloud  its  lustre,"  is  a  point  which  he  does  not  discuss;  but 
he  comes  very  properly  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Hebrew 
language  will  be  yet  better  understood  than  it  is,  as  progress 
is  made  in  the  investigation  of  its  cognate  dialects,  and  of 
oriental  manners  and  customs.  And  he  asks,  "  was  not  re- 
velation given  to  be  understood?  And  is  there  any  more 
harm  in  the  theologian's  interrogating  Scripture,  than  in  the 
chemist's,  the  geologist's,  and  the  astronomer's  interrogating 
nature?"  p.  24. 

On  the  next  page  or  two,  he  proceeds  as  follows:  "  Does 
divine  authority  require  a  Mind  deference,  an  unintelligent 
assent,  to  its  dicta,  merely  because  they  emanate  from  the 
supreme  will  in  the  universe?  Does  not  God  deal  with  men 
as  men,  and  is  not  reason  a  constituent  part  of  man's  nature, 
which  in  no  circumstances  he  can  be  called  to  forego?  Does 
not  the  Most  High  himself  make  his  appeal  to  this  principle 
when  he  says,  'Come,  let  us  reason  together?'  And  how 
far  does  any  man's  religion  differ  from  enthusiasm  that  is 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  39 

not  regulated  by  the  balance-wheel  of  a  sound  and  en- 
lightened reason? 

"  The  truth  is,  as  the  human  mind  is  constituted,  it  is 
utterly  impossible  to  refrain  from  asking  the  questions  to 
which  we  have  referred,  and  which  bear  upon  the  apparent 
conflict  between  the  revelations  of  Scripture  and  the  revela- 
tions of  science.  If,  for  instance,  the  obvious  literal  and 
grammatical  sense  of  the  sacred  record  leads  me  to  believe 
that  the  material  globe,  with  the  various  orders  of  its  in- 
habitants, was  first  spoken  into  existence  six  thousand  years 
ago,  and  geology  at  the  same  time  brings  to  my  mind  ab- 
solute demonstrations,  which  I  cannot  possibly  resist  without 
doing  violence  to  the  fundamental  laws  of  belief,  that  it  has 
existed  thousands  and  myriads  of  years  before  that  time, 
what  am  I  to  think?  I  am  brought  to  a  stand  at  once.  I 
must  pause  and  ponder  on  this  discrepancy.  I  must  cast 
about  for  some  adequate  mode  of  harmonizing  these  various 
views.  What  will  it  avail  to  tell  me,  when  I  am  assured  to 
the  contrary,  that,  as  geology  is  merely  in  its  infancy,  its 
asserted  results  are  not  to  be  depended  upon,  and  that  it  is 
altogether  too  early  to  build  such  sweeping  conclusions  upon 
such  a  slender  induction  of  facts.  I  know  that  this  is  what 
no  one  will  afiirm  who  is  acquainted  with  the  facts.  And 
what  should  we  think  of  the  asseverations  of  a  stage-driver 
who  should  affirm,  in  opposition  to  Lyell,  or  Silliman,  or 
Hitchcock,  that  he  had  travelled  for  years  over  a  particular 
section  of  country,  and  had  never  seen  the  least  evidence  of 
such  strata  and  formations  as  the  geologists  affirmed  to  exist 
there?"  p.  26. 

He  concludes  the  consideration  of  his  proposition  with 
the  following  remarks.  Referring  to  the  position  that  "  the 
Bible  is  moraU  and  not  scientific^  and  that  no  important  in- 
terest of  revelation  is  jeoparded  by  admitting  that,  on  a  mul- 
titude of  subjects  which  come  within  the  range  of  man's 
unassisted  powers,  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  professes  nothing 
more  than  to  speak  according  to  visible  appearances  and 
popular  notions,"  he  says,  "  This  fact  is  now  beginning  to 
be  very  generally  recognized,  and  no  enlightened  mind 
dreams  that  what  is  gained  to  science  is  necessarily  lost  to 
Scripture.  Still  we  have  no  idea  that  the  extent  to  which 
this  principle  is  to  be  applied,  is  at  this  day  at  all  adequately 
appreciated,  and  therefore  we  shall  not  be  in  the  least  sur- 
prised if  the  present  attempt  to  make  the  ascertained  results 


40  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  physiology  a  .test  by  which  to  try  many  of  the  literal 
declarations  of  the  sacred  writers,  should  be  regarded  as  a 
bold  and  hazardous  coming  in  collision  with  its  sacred  veri- 
ties. But,  as  we  have  well  pondered  the  ground  on  which 
we  adventure  to  tread,  we  advance  with  great  confidence  to 
our  conclusions,  and  shall  tranquilly  abide  the  issue.  It  is 
possible,  indeed,  that  we  may  have  erred  in  the  specific  re- 
sults which  we  announce,  and  if  so,  this  may  be  shown  on 
satisfactory  grounds;  but  we  have  no  fear  of  being  con- 
victed, before  an  enlightened  tribunal,  of  having  periled  the 
weal  of  the  sacred  oracles  by  the  advocacy  of  a  false  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation.  We  cannot  conceive  that  the  homage 
due  to  a  revelation  from  God  requires  us  to  forego  the  in- 
evitable deductions  of  that  reason  with  which  he  has  endowed 
us,  nor  do  we  think  it  possible  that  that  word  will  ever 
achieve  its  predicted  triumphs  over  the  human  mind  till  its 
teachings,  on  all  points  that  come  within  the  sphere  of  a  true 
philosophy,  shall  be  seen  to  harmonize  with  its  legitimate 
deductions.  This,  however,  will  still  leave  a  hallowed  pro- 
vince of  purely  moral  announcements,  in  which  revelation 
utters  its  oracles  as  speaking  out  of  an  eternal  silence  which 
no  voice  of  reason  could  ever  break."  pp.  28,  29. 

In  regard  to  the  "  principle  of  interpretation,"  above  re- 
ferred to,  we  shall  say  nothing  here,  as  that  subject  will 
come  up  for  consideration  in  the  sequel.  Nor  is  the  question 
to  be  now  discussed,  whether  what  Professor  Bush  here  says 
respecting  the  knowledge  of  revelation  being  progressive,  is 
true  or  false.  It  may  all  be  true ;  and,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment, I  am  willing  to  concede  that  it  is.  I  most  cheerfully 
admit  that  truth  is  not  to  be  despised  because  it  is  new.  No 
generous  or  manly  soul  will  be  angry  or  out  of  humour  to  see 
his  old  notions  and  doctrines  necessarily  exploded  by  his  be- 
coming acquainted  with  clearly  ascertained  truths,  of  which  he 
was  previously  ignorant.  Such  minds  will  not  reject  truth  be- 
cause they  knew  it  not  before.  Avgustin  and  Lactantius  were 
perfectly  astounded  at  the  idea  that  there  were  antipodes, 
"  men  walking  with  their  feet  upward,  and  their  head  down- 
ward;" and  so  too  with  Lucretius  the  poet.  And  their 
amazement  has  its  counterpart  in  many  cases  in  our  own 
day;  where  there  is  a  stern  refusal  to  investigate  the  evi- 
dence of  announced  results,  the  proof  of  which  is  well  as- 
certained, and  amounts  to  absolute  moral  demonstration.  It 
is  unnecessary  here  to  particularize. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  41 

But  we  again  say,  that  this  is  not  the  point  to  be  consid- 
ered here.  The  proposition  of  Professor  Bush,  referred  to 
above,  may  be  susceptible  of  demonstration  that  will  de- 
molish cavil.  But  he  announces  it,  together  with  its  long 
array  of  proof,  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  his  attempt  to 
prove  from  reason  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  cannot  be  true.  The  question  must  therefore  very 
naturally  present  itself,  Whether  all  this  has  any  real  ap- 
plication to  the  subject  ?  Whether  it  bears  at  all  on  the 
matter  ?  Does  the  analogy  hold  good  between  the  results 
which  he  professes  to  announce,  and  the  recent  results  of  che- 
mical, astronomical,  and  geological  investigation  1  Because, 
if  there  is  no  analogy,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  all  this 
introductory  parade  is  mere  vox  et  prcBterea  nihil. 

In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  assert  plainly  and  unequivo- 
cally, that,  in  his  "  argument  from  reason,'^  he  has  not  ad- 
vanced a  solitary  idea,  either  in  its  statement  or  application, 
which  was  not  advanced  against  the  doctrine  under  conside- 
ration ages  before  Professor  Bush  was  born.  We  have  pre- 
sented pretty  full  proof  of  this  in  section  II.  of  the  preceding 
chapter.  And  so  far  is  Professor  Bush  from  being  entitled 
to  claim  the  merit  of  having  either  made  or  announced  any 
new  discovery  in  respect  to  his  own  theory,  that  the  very 
argument  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  upon  which  he  claims 
to  have  gone  beyond  all  preceding  writers  on  the  resurrec- 
tion, (Swedenborgians  excepted,)  has  been  answered  by 
Baxter,  (Works,  vol.  XXI.  p.  331,)  two  hundred  years  ago; 
and  Tilenus,  [Syntag.  p.  968,)  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
ago;  and  by  Vanderkemp,  (Expos.  Heid.  Cat.  I.,  p.  445,) 
by  Baumgarten,  (Theol.  Streitig.  III.,  457,)  by  Watson, 
(Theol.  Instit.  p.  380,)  and  by  theologians  without  number; 
while  it  has  been  repeatedly  advanced  by  the  Socinians, 
Shakers,  and  Rationalists.  And  in  reference  to  the  Pro- 
fessor's whole  book,  I  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction, 
that  he  has  therein  advanced, 

1.  Not  one  new,  and  plausibly  sustained  exposition  of  any 
portion  of  Scripture ; 

2.  Not  one  new  principle  in  hermeneutics ; 

3.  Not  one  new  application  of  the  old  principles ; 

4.  Not  one  new  discovery  in  science ; 

5.  Nor  one  new  application  of  any  scientific  discovery. 
Nothing  that  the  world  had  notfidly  knoxcnfor  ages. 

How  utterly  out  of  place  is  it,  therefore,  to  begin  his  dis- 
4* 


42  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

cussion  with  such  a  parade  of  proof,  to  show  that  the  know- 
ledge of  Scripture  must  be  progressive  1  Suppose  it  is  pro- 
gressive; and  what  has  this  to  do  with  his  argument,  or 
book  ?  Just  nothing  at  all.  But  we  shall,  in  the  next 
place,  proceed  to  state  his  argument  from  reason.  And  as 
so  much  depends  upon  it,  in  Professor  Bush's  estimation,  and 
as  he  refers  to  it  so  continually  all  through  his  book,  pro- 
fessing to  rely  upon  it  as  nothing  short  of  absolute  demon- 
stration, we  shall  state  it  somewhat  at  large ;  for  we  shall 
undertake  to  give  it  a  thorough  refutation. 

SECTION  II. 

Professor  Bushes  Argument  from  Reason  stated. 

In  the  first  p.aragraph  of  this  argument.  Professor  Bush 
endeavours  to  establish  a  connexion  between  the  proposition 
above  referred  to,  respecting  the  progressive  development  of 
the  import  of  revelation,  and  the  argument  which  he  pro- 
ceeds to  state.     His  language  is  the  following : 

"  If  the  position  maintained  in  our  preceding  pages  be 
well  founded — that  there  is  to  be  an  onward  progress  in  our 
knowledge  of  Revelation,  as  there  confessedly  is  in  the  know- 
ledge of  Nature — it  follows,  of  course,  that  we  have  no  more 
reason  to  be  surprised  at  the  announcement,  we  will  not  say 
of  new  truths,  but  of  new  views  of  old  truths,  in  biblical 
science,  than  at  the  announcement  of  new  discoveries  in 
physical  science.  There  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  the  possible  extent  of  this  progress,  but  none,  we  think, 
as  to  the  fact  itself.  It  is  impossible  to  assign  a  reason  why 
the  outgoings  of  the  human  intellect  should  confine  them- 
selves  to  the  limits  of  purely  scientific  research.  They  will 
certainly  aim,  at  least,  to  penetrate  the  central  abysses  of 
Revelation."  p.  31. 

This  connexion  is  still  more  unambiguously  asserted  on 
the  next  page  or  two.     The  Professor  says: 

"  We  see,  beyond  question,  that  in  other  departments  the 
progress  of  scientific  truth  has  enabled  us  to  put  a  more  cor- 
rect interpretation  upon  many  points  of  Scripture ;  and  why 
is  it  not  possible  it  may  be  so  here  ?  Does  any  one  now  think 
of  understanding  the  command  of  Joshua  to  the  sun  and 
moon,  precisely  as  he  would  before  the  true  system  of  astro- 
nomy was  ascertained  ?  Does  any  one,  acquainted  with  the 
demonstrated  results  of  geology,  gather  precisely  the  same 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  43 

ideas  from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  that  he  did  before 
that  science  was  fixed  upon  its  present  firm  basis  ? 

"  If,  then,  in  these  departments  we  are  conscious  that  the 
disopveries  of  science  have  given  us  clearer  information  rela- 
tive to  the  true  sense  of  revelation,  why  is  it  not  conceivable 
that,  from  the  same  source,  we  may  obtain  a  clew  to  con- 
duct us  somewhat  nearer  the  truth  on  the  great  theme  before 
us  1  Certainly,  the  more  perfectly  we  understand  the  inward 
structure  and  functions  of  our  own  frames — the  more  com- 
pletely we  become  masters  of  that  wondrous  economy  which 
constitutes  us  what  we  now  are,  the  nearer  doubtless  shall 
we  approach  to  a  knowledge  of  what  we  shall  hereafter  be. 
Nothing  is  better  known  to  intelligent  men  than  that  im- 
mense advances  have  actually  been  made,  within  the  last  half 
century,  in  the  physiology  of  the  human  system;  and  though 
the  grand  agency  by  which  the  animal  functions  are  carried 
on  has  eluded  research — the  vital  principle — yet  approxi- 
mations have  continually  been  made  towards  it,  and  we  see 
not  why  we  should  abandon,  as  utterly  hopeless,  the  pros- 
pect of  one  day  compassing  the  grand  central  truth  of  our 
being." 

This  attempt  of  Professor  Bush  to  forge  a  connecting  link 
between  his  "  Argument  from  Reason"  and  the  argument 
in  which  he  attempts  to  prove  the  "  Knowledge  of  Revela- 
tion to  be  Progressive,"  is  but  a  tale  "  signifying  nothing ;" 
and  this  for  the  reason  before  stated,  to  wit :  there  is  no 
analogy  whatever  between  the  hypothesis  of  Professor  Bush, 
and  the  hypothesis  v^hich  he  adduces  for  illustration.  His 
effort,  therefore,  to  make  the  impression,  that,  in  order  fairly 
to  refute  his  theory,  it  is  necessary  to  refute  his  introducto- 
ry chapter,  is  an  utter  failure.  For  there  is  no  connexion 
whatever  between  that  part  of  the  argument  and  the  theory 
which  it  is  brought  to  support. 

I  am  sorry  to  be  compelled  to  repeat  this  asseveration  so 
directly  in  the  face  of  the  Professor's  assertions  contained  in 
the  last  of  the  above  quoted  paragraphs ;  and  yet,  if  such  be 
the  recent  advancement  in  scientific  discovery,  the  results  of 
which  are  so  applicable  both  to  the  illustration  and  support 
of  his  theory,  is  it  not  an  unparalleled  humility  which  has 
led  him  to  forego  all  the  advantages  which  might  accrue  from 
availing  himself  of  such  discoveries,  and  meekly  to  take  his 
place  at  the  feet  of  old  Avicen  and  Nihusius,  of  the  Ana- 
baptists and  Socinians,  of  the  Shakers  and  Rationalists,  and 


44  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

to  satisfy  himself  with  what  they  had  advanced  on  the  same 
subject  so  long  before  ? 

But  let  us  hear  this  much  lauded  argument  itself. 

"  No  fact  in  physiological  science,"  says  Professor  Bush, 
"  is  better  ascertained,  than  that  the  human  body,  in  regard 
to  its  constituent  particles,  is  in  a  state  of  constant  flux.  It 
is  perpetually  undergoing  a  process  of  waste  and  reparation. 
Strictly  speaking,  no  man  has  the  same  body  now  that  he 
had  seven  years  ago,  as  it  is  in  about  this  period  that  a  com- 
plete change  is  held  to  take  place  in  the  bodily  structure,  by 
which  we  may  be  said  to  be  corporeally  renovated.  This  is 
a  fact  established  by  physiology,  and  the  proof  of  it,  we  be- 
lieve, is  entirely  beyond  question,  and  must  form  an  indis- 
pensable element  in  any  judgment  which  we  pronounce  upon 
the  subject.  The  phrase,  tJie  body,  does  not  accurately  re- 
present the  object  intended,  if  the  idea  conveyed  by  it  be 
restricted  to  the  body  as  existing  at  anyone  moment.  The  idea 
of  existence  in  continuity  is  indispensable  to  it.  The  ques- 
tion then  again  recurs — What  body  is  to  be  raised  1  A  person 
who  dies  at  the  age  of  seventy  has  had  ten  difl^erent  bodies. 
Which  of  these  is  to  be  the  body  of  the  resurrection  ?  Is  it 
the  body  of  infancy,  of  childhood,  of  youth,  of  manhood,  or 
old  age?  Or  is  it  the  aggregate  of  all  these?  If  we  go  back 
to  the  days  of  the  Antediluvians  and  apportion  the  number 
of  the  bodies  of  Methusaleh,  for  instance,  to  the  length  of  his 
life,  and  then  suppose  the  whole  to  be  collected  into  one  vast 
corporeity,  we  should  indeed  be  reminded  that,  as  '  there 
were  giants  in  those  days,'  so  there  will  he  giants  in  the  day 
of  the  resurrection ! 

"  It  is  obvious  that  a  very  grave  difficulty  from  this  source 
pertains  to  the  prevalent  theory  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  and  one  which  we  discover  no  mode  of  obviating  on 
that  theory." 

Then  on  pp.  42,  43,  he  presents  these  same  considera- 
tions as  follows:  "The  objection  which  constitutes  the  bur- 
den of  our  present  argument  obviously  resolves  itself  into  the 
difficulty  of  conceiving  of  any  fixed  relation  between  the 
body  that  dies  and  the  body  that  is  raised.  So  far  as  we 
are  able  to  apprehend  the  prevalent  sentiments  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  in  regard  to  this  subject,  they  suppose  that  the 
same  body  which  is  consigned  to  its  native  dust  is  at  some 
distant  day,  and  in  some  unknown  manner,  to  be  raised 
again  and  reconstructed,  and  the  disembodied  spirit,  after  a 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  45 

long  exile,  to  be  restored  to  its  primitive  habitation,  newly 
fashioned  and  furnished  by  the  hand  of  Omnipotence.  To 
this  view  we  urge  the  objection,  that,  by  the  law  of  the  ani- 
mal economy,  the  body  in  this  life  is  continually  changing, 
and  consequently  that  it  conveys  no  definite  conception  to 
the  mind  to  say  that  the  body  will  be  raised,  unless  it  is 
clearly  specified  what  particular  body  is  meant.  Nothing  is 
clearer  than  that  the  principle  above  stated  enforces  the 
necessary  admission  of  a  succession  of  bodies;  and  if  so,  we 
are  at  liberty  to  demand  which  one  of  the  series  is  to  be 
raised.  If  a  man  retained  precisely  the  same  body  un- 
changed from  his  natal  to  his  dying  day,  the  difficulty  would 
not  be  so  glaringly  insurmountable;  but  even  in  that  case, 
as  the  resurrection  body  is  to  be  a  spiritual  body,  it  con- 
founds our  faculties  to  attempt  to  imagine  of  what  use  the 
former  material  and  fleshly  particles  are  to  be'  in  the  forma- 
tion of  a  purely  spiritual  body.  Is  it  not  as  easy  for  Omni- 
potence to  form  a  spiritual  body  entirely  new,  without  re- 
ference to  any  pre-existing  materials,  as  to  elaborate  one  out 
of  the  gross  component  parts  of  a  previous  bodyl  And  is 
not  Mr.  Locke's  remark,  in  his  letter  to  Stillingfleet,  per- 
fectly well  founded,  that  '  it  would  be  hard  to  determine,  if 
that  were  demanded,  what  greater  congruity  the  soul  hath 
with  any  particles  of  matter  which  were  once  united  to  it, 
but  are  now  so  no  longer,  than  it  hath  with  particles  of  mat- 
ter that  were  never  united  to  it.' 

"  We  repeat,  then,  that  the  common  view  of  the  resurrec- 
tion labours,  in  our  opinion,  fatally  on  the  score  of  a  con- 
ceivable relation  between  the  present  and  the  future  body." 

This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  Professor  Bush's  argu- 
ment  from  reason.  And  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  a  mere 
expansion  of  these  considerations. 

Along  with  these  remarks  Professor  Bush  has  interspersed 
some  observation  on  hermeneuticsj  (nor  is  it  easy  to  imagine 
any  thing  to  be  more  perfectly  out  of  place,)  to  which  we 
shall  pay  all  due  attention  hereafter.  He  has  also  dwelt 
with  particular  emphasis  upon  the  "  objection  "  to  the  doc- 
trine under  consideration,  that  it  infers  that  all  bodies  must 
necessarily  come  out  of  their  graves  whether  they  ever  were 
in  graves  or  not.  And  he  is  even  serious  in  such  an  at- 
tempt at  the  reductio  ad  absurdum.  This  matter  will  like- 
wise come  up  again  hereafter. 

Such  then  is  Professor  Bush's  argument  from  reason^  de- 


46  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

veloped  by  the  recent  prodigious  advance  in  scientific  dis- 
covery! and  yet  perfectly  known,  and  urged  against  the 
doctrine  ofthe  resurrection,  centuries  before  he  existed.  We 
have  stated  it  fully,  and  the  reader,  we  doubt  not,  will  allow 
it  all  the  consideration  it  deserves.  Summed  up  in  brief  it  is 
this:  the  body  through  life  is  constantly  undergoing  changes, 
and  is  in  fact  wholly  renewed  about  once  in  seven  years. 
After  death  also,  the  body  becomes  resolved  into  its  elements, 
and  oftentimes  the  particles  which  composed  it  form  new 
combinations  with  other  human  bodies;  and  hence  it  is  im- 
possible that  the  same  body  that  died  should  be  raised  and 
restored  to  its  first  proprietor  without  depriving  other  persons 
ofthe  bodies  which  they  possessed. 

Professor  Bush  has  not  announced  this  conclusion  for- 
mally, and  in  regular  sequence  from  the  premises;  for  he 
could  not  but  have  seen  a  great  hiatus  between  the  two. 
And  with  the  skill  of  a  practiced  disputant  he  has  left  the 
reader  to  draw  the  conclusion  which  he  himself  would  not 
formally  announce.  For  who  does  not  see  that  to  predicate 
impossibility  upon  such  grounds  is  sheer  absurdity.  For 
even  allowing  a  human  body  to  be  devoured  by  cannibals, 
does  not  Professor  Bush  know  that  but  a  small  part  of  it 
becomes  really  incorporated  with  their  bodies?  And  would 
he  venture  to  affirm  that  any  part  or  particle  of  it,  which  is 
really  essential  to  its  integrity,  is  ever  thus  incorporated. 

But  this  is  not  the  ground  upon  which  we  shall  meet  and 
refute  this  argument,  as  will  be  seen  presently.  Yet  before 
proceeding  to  do  so  formally,  there  are  two  or  three  things 
which  call  for  a  preliminary  remark.  KnA  first  I  cannot 
but  refer  once  more  to  Professor  Bush's  claim  to  recent 
scientific  investigation,  as  furnishing  results  upon  which  this 
argument  is  based.  I  have  said  that  it  was  employed  by 
others  before  he  existed,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  Chapter  I., 
I  have  furnished  several  proofs  of  this  asseveration,  and 
will  here  refer  to  another.  Nearly  a  century  ago,  the  noted 
infidel  Voltaire,  reasoned  against  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection as  follows,  announcing  the  very  results  of  ^^scien- 
tific investigation,^''  to  which  Professor  Bush  appeals:  "To 
make  a  dead  man  rise  again  after  some  days,  it  is  necessary 
that  all  the  imperceptible  parts  of  his  body,  which  had  been 
exhaled  in  the  air,  and  which  the  winds  had  carried  off, 
should  return  to  their  proper  places ;  that  the  worms,  birds 
and  animals  that  have  fed  on  the  corpse,  should  restore  each 


ASSERTED    AND    DEPENDED.  47 

what  it  took  away.  The  worms  which  have  fattened  upon 
the  entrails  of  this  man,  have  been  eaten  by  swallows,  these 
swallows  have  been  devoured  by  other  birds,  and  these  again 
by  hawks,  these  hawks  again  by  vultures ;  each  of  these 
must  restore  precisely  what  belonged  to  the  dead  man,  other- 
wise he  cannot  be  the  same  person."*  I  am  willing  that  the 
reader  should  determine  whether  the  objection  by  Voltaire 
and  that  propounded  by  Professor  Bush,  are  not  substan- 
tially the  same.  And  if  they  are,  then,  what  are  we  to  think 
of  the  Professor's  ^^  Knowledge  of  Revelation  Progressive,''^ 
as  applied  by  him  to  sustain  this  very  objection  ? 

Another  point  which  should  not  be  passed  over  here,  is 
the  fact  that  Professor  Bush,  perpetually,  through  his  whole 
book  places  the  most  implicit  reliance  upon  the  conclusions 
of  this  argument — conclusions,  however,  which  he  skilfully 
induces  the  reader  to  draw.  In  almost  innumerable  places, 
where  he  finds  the  obvious  sense  of  a  passage  of  Scripture 
to  conflict  with  his  theory,  he  refers  to  this  argument  with 
some  such  remark  as  the  following  :  "  No  two  truths  in  the 
universe  can  conflict  with  each  other."  Or  thus,  "  If  our 
previous  train  of  reasoning  be  sound,  the  drift  of  which  is  to 
evince  that  the  future  resurrection  of  the  same  body  is  intrin- 
sically inconceivable  and  incredible,"  &c.,  or,  "  We  have 
undoubtedly  made  our  previous  inductions  a  criterion  by 
which  the  absolute  truth  of  the  scriptural  dicta  on  the  sub- 
ject are  to  be  judged,"  &c.  "  If  our  rational  results  are 
sound  and  impregnable,"  &c.,  &c.  pp.  97,  273,  &c.,  &c. 
These  things  are  surely  more  than  sufficient  to  justify  us  in 
stating  this  argument  so  fully  as  we  have  done,  and  also  in 
replying  to  it  at  the  length  which  we  propose.f 

Another  point  which  should  be  here  referred  to,  is  that 
many  of  the  most  acute,  and  learned,  and  discriminating 
minds  the  world  has  ever  seen,  and  who  have  bestowed 
upon  the  subject  as  much  attention,  to  say  the  least,  as  Pro- 
fessor Bush  has  ever  done,  have,  with  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  every  thing  which  he  has  alleged  against  it,  still  adhered 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Take  bishop 
Butler,  for  an  example.  In  his  Analogy,  (one  of  the  most 
splendid  monuments  of  human  genius,)  published  more  than 

*  See  "  Letters  of  Certain  Jews  to  Monsieur  Voltaire,"  p.  484. 

t  For  other  references  to  this  argument  as  perfectly  conclusive,  see 
pp.  71,  81,  82,  191,  235,  236,  385,  386,  390,  «&c.,  &c.  His  book  ac 
tually  teems  with  such  references. 


48  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

a  century  ago,  he  has  repeatedly  affirmed  the  then  well 
known  fact,  of  the  never-ceasing  attrition  and  replacement 
of  the  particles  which  compose  the  human  structure.  A  fact 
which  composes  the  sole  basis  of  Professor  Bush's  argument 
from  reason — and  a  fact,  the  knowledge  of  which,  he  pre- 
tends to  ascribe  to  the  recent  results  of  scientific  investiga- 
tion. And  besides,  he  himself  incidentally  admits  that  the 
same  objection  was  substantially  known,  and  replied  to  by 
Augustin  fifteen  hundred  years  ago.  See  Anastasis,  p.  41, 
and  De  Civitate  Dei,  lib.  22,  cap.  13  and  20.  And  yet 
these  men,  and  the  great  body  of  the  church  of  God,  learned 
as  well  as  unlearned,  who  have  been  aware  of  all  that  Pro- 
fessor Bush  has  advanced,  have  ever  held  to  the  doctrine 
which  he  impugns.  Dr.  Bentley  would  have  told  Professor 
Bush,  (if  he  had  collected  and  urged  these  old  stale  cavils 
and  objections  in  the  Doctor's  time,)  as  he  told  a  certain  noted 
character  of  his  own  day,  that  "  it  filled  him  with  disdain  to 
see  such  common  stuff  brought  in  with  an  air  of  importance." 
Phileleuth.  Lipsiensis,  Part  I.  p.  92-114. 

SECTION  III. 

The  condition  of  Professor  Bushes  Argument  from  Reason. 

But  for  the  sake  of  doing  full  justice  to  the  subject,  we 
shall,  in  replying  to  this  objection,  proceed  as  though  the 
assumption  of  Professor  Bush  respecting  the  nature  and 
recent  origin  of  his  argument  were  unquestionable.  He  may 
have  all  the  advantage  which  the  argument  of  his  adoption 
can  yield  him. 

Now  the  whole  argument  resolves  itself  simply  into  this : 
a  deduction  of  reason  arrays  itself  against  a  declaration  of 
the  Bible.  But  *'  no  two  truths  in  the  universe  can  really 
conflict  with  each  other;"  and  therefore  revelation  must  be 
so  explained  as  to  agree  with  the  "irrefragable  deduction" 
of  reason.     See  ^^zas^asis,  pp.  71,  and  81,  82,  &c. 

But  this  statement  is  not  perfectly  clear.  For  it  assumes 
that  we  may  rest  with  implicit  confidence  upon  the  deduc- 
tions of  science  and  reason  as  true,  even  where  they  plainly 
conflict  with  the  testimony  of  God.  And  why,  I  would  ask, 
should  we  not  as  readily  suspect  the  truth  of  our  scientific 
deductions,  as  the  testimony  of  revelation  in  respect  to  any 
given  subject?  That  there  is  the  best  of  reasons  for  this 
shall  be  shown  in  another  section. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  49 

But  again.  This  statement  of  Professor  Bush,  though  so 
often  repeated,  is  at  best  not  clear.  If  he  means  by  it,  that 
when  God  declares  positively  that  a  thing  is  thus  or  so,  and 
our  reason  infers  the  contrary,  that  we  should  lake  the  ver- 
dict of  reason  instead  of  the  testimony  of  God,  I  protest 
wholly  against  it.  But  if  he  means  that  in  a  case  where  the 
import  of  Scripture  is  not  clear  and  positive;  reason  and 
science  may  properly  lend  a  hand  to  explain  and  illustrate 
the  passage,  surely,  there  is  nothing  in  this  that  need  be  pre- 
sented so  continually  as  it  is  by  Professor  Bush,  and  in  such 
a  controversial  attitude.  It  is  what  is  universally  admitted 
by  the  Christian  church. 

But  though  Professor  Bush  seems  to  have  substantially 
adopted  the  views  of  Leibnitz  and  Wolf  *'  on  the  agreemerit 
of  Faith  and  Reason,"*  yet  in  other  parts  of  his  book  he 
appears  to  have  conceded  on  this  subject  every  thing  that 
we  could  require.  Take,  for  example,  the  following  from 
pp.  84,  85,  "  If  the  teachings  of  that  divine  volume  array 
themselves  so  unequivocally  and  inexorably  against  the  con- 
clusions to  which  we  are  brought  by  the  argument  from 
reason,  that  we  can  by  no  process  of  conciliation  harmonize 
the  two,  undoubtedly  we  are  required  to  abide  by  the  scrip- 
tural decision,  whatever  violence  it  may  seem  to  do  to  our 
rational  deductions."  See  also  pp.  26,  27.  Now  if  this  be 
so,  then  the  whole  matter  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of 
exegesis:  viz.  Has  the  Bible  asserted  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  clearly  and  unequivocally?  And 
this  is  the  question  with  which  we  think  Professor  Bush 
should  have  commenced  his  discussion.  And  if  he  had 
found  the  doctrine  to  be  ambiguously  asserted,  or  expressed, 
then  it  would  have  been  proper  and  timely  to  call  reason  and 
science  to  his  assistance. 

SECTION  IV. 

How  much  of  Professor  Bush's  Theory  would  be  established  by 
his  Argument  from  Reason,  admitting  both  its  premises  and 
conclusion  to  be  correct. 

Professor  Bush  has  attempted  to  make  this  argument  the 
basis  of  his  theory  :  and  before  we  proceed  further  with  our 

*  "Logical  necessity,"  said  they,  "cannot  be  altered  by  God  him- 
self, and  therefore  it  cannot  contradict  revelation."  See  Tholuck's 
Historical  Sketch  of  German  Rationalism.  And  compare  Anasiasis. 
pp.  45,  47,  57,  &c. 

5 


50  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

discussion  of  it,  it  may  be  well  to  inquire  how  much  of  his 
theory  it  will  support,  admitting  both  its  premises  and  con- 
clusion to  be  sound.  How  much  would  the  received  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection,  and  judgment,  &.c.  &c.,  require  to 
be  modified  supposing  this  argument  to  be  truly  unanswera- 
ble and  conclusive? 

In  answer  to  this  I  remark,  that  this  argument  would  esta- 
blish but  the  smallest  and  most  unimportant  fraction  of  his 
theory.     It   would    only  pkove  that  the  same   body 

THAT     DIED     WOULD     NOT     ARISE     IN     THE     RESURRECTION. 

But  it  would  not  prove,  1.  That  a  spiritual  body  is,  at  death, 
eliminated  from  the  corporeal ;  or  2.  That  there  is  not  to  be 
a  day  of  future  resurrection ;  or  3.  That  there  is  not  to  be 
a  future  day  of  judgment;  or  4.  That  Christ's  material  body 
did  not  arise  and  ascend  to  heaven  ;  or  5.  That  the  resur- 
rection is  effected  by  natural  laws  ;  or  6.  That  the  righteous 
alone  are  partakers  of  the  resurrection ;  or  7.  That  the 
spiritual  germ  or  body  is  perfected  in  the  spiritual  world,  as 
the  animal  body  is  in  this. 

His  argument  from  reason  therefore,  is  of  but  little  ser- 
vice to  the  Professor  after  all.  It  does  not  establish  but  a 
single  feature  of  his  whole  theory.  He  could  have  lost  but 
little  therefore,  if  he  had  left  it  in  the  undisturbed  possession 
of  Mohammedans,  Socinians,  and  skeptics. 

But  we  refer  to  these  considerations  only  en  passant;  and 
shall  now  proceed  to  a  full  refutation  of  the  argument  on 
philosophical  principles ;  or  at  least  to  show  on  such  princi- 
ples that  it  cannot  be  fully  depended  upon.  And  though 
Professor  Bush  has  not  and  cannot  prove  that  what  is  neces- 
sary to  the  true  identity  of  the  body  that  dies  ever  becomes 
incorporated  with  other  human  bodies,  but  has  assumed  it 
without  proof,  we  shall  not  dwell  upon  the  unwarrantable- 
ness  of  such  an  assumption,  but  proceed  at  once  to  show  the 
inconclusiveness  of  the  argument  even  as  he  has  stated  it. 

SECTION  V. 

Professor   Bust's  Argument  from  Reason  cannot  be   safely 
relied  on. 

Reason  itself,  as  Swift  correctly  remarks,*  "  is  true  and 
just ;  but  the  reason  of  every  particular  man  is  weak  and 

*  See  his  Sermon  on  the  Trinity,  Works,  Vol.  II. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  51 

wavering,  and  is  perpetually  liable  to  be  swayed  or  influenced 
by  his  interests,  his  prejudices  or  his  vices."  And  it  is  in 
consequence  of  losing  sight  of  this  obvious  distinction,  that 
the  so-called  reason  has  assumed  a  Protean  form,  and  utters 
oracles  in  one  age,  which  the  better  information  of  the  next 
sweeps  away  as  the  winds  did  the  inscribed  leaves  of  the 
Sybil.  France  could  laud  reason  to  the  skies,  and  even 
worship  her  as  in  fancy  embodied  in  the  form  of  an  insane 
strumpet:  while  other  nations  regarded  her  proceedings  as 
utterly  at  war  with  reason.  Bacon,  and  Boyle,  and  Newton, 
and  Butler,  could  see  nothing  unreasonable  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  though  they  were  acquainted 
with  every  thing  that  Professor  Bush  has  urged  against  it ; 
but  the  Professor  himself  sees  it  to  be  wholly  unreasonable, 
and  that  "  it  involves  ideas  at  war  with  each  other,  and 
therefore  cannot  he  intelligently  received."  Anastasis, 
Preface,  p.  x. 

If  Professor  Bush  had  told  us  what  reason  is,  in  the  sense 
in  which  he  uses  the  term,  and  had  laid  down  the  canons  by 
which  we  might  be  able  to  determine  when  she  uttered  her 
infallible  decrees,  we  should  not  have  so  much  wondered  at 
the  confidence  which  he  professes  to  repose  in  her  decisions. 
For  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to  contemplate  the  subject, 
what  is  called  reason,  has  certainly  played  many  singular 
antics  with  the  minds  of  her  implicit  worshippers.  And  I 
have  long  supposed  that  among  reflecting  men,  it  was  an 
admitted  fact  that  the  greatest  mistakes  may  be  easily  made 
in  our  conception  of  things  and  inferences  therefrom;  and 
that  the  judgment  may  be  easily  imposed  upon.  Lord  Ba- 
con, I  thought,  had  long  ago  settled  this  matter,  in  his 
"Ta&Ze  of  the  Colours  of  Good  and  Evil,"  (Works,  vol. 
II.,  p.  254,  seq.  London,  1838,)  wherein  he  so  clearly 
demonstrates  that  the  intellectual  faculty  is  at  best  but  weak, 
and  is  in  almost  all  our  pursuits  perpetually  liable  to  be 
abused  and  led  astray. 

A  wise  heathen,  when  he  remarked  that  the  soul  is  infect- 
ed by  the  phantasms  which  surround  it,*  shrewdly  intima- 
ted that  men  often  guess  at  truth  rather  than  discover  it :  a 
sentiment  which  Du  Pinf  has,  (without  formally  referring  to 
it,)  thus  strikingly  expanded:  "We  speak  and  write  mostly, 

*  BaTTTtfraj  &7ro  tZv  <pAVTA(rtZv  »  ^-^/t"'  Marc.  Aurel.  Antoninus 
Lib.  iii. 

t  See  his  Bibl.  Fair.  Prefatione. 


52  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

according  to  the  different  emotions  and  passions  which  agi- 
tate us.  And  those  objects  which  strike  us  most  forcibly, 
represent  themselves  in  a  lively  manner  to  our  imagination, 
and  thus  determine  us  to  that  side."  This  certainly  must 
command  the  assent  of  every  reflecting  mind.  And  we 
might  complete  the  trio  also  by  referring  to  the  well  known 
remark  of  Cicero,  that  "  there  is  nothing,  however  prepos- 
terous and  unreasonable,  which  has  not  been  maintained 
by  some  philosopher  or  other  as  his  opinion,  and  asserted 
with  great  confidence." 

We  mean  not  by  these  remarks  to  intimate  that  in  our 
view,  reason  is  to  be  discarded  in  interpreting  the  revela- 
tion which  God  has  made  to  man ;  but  simply  to  enter  our 
decided  protest  against  any  and  every  man  setting  up  his 
views  as  a  fair  and  unbiassed  representation  of  what  reason 
teaches.  True  and  right  reason  can  never  conflict  with 
revelation.  But  there  is  much  less  of  right  reason  among 
men  than  is  commonly  imagined.  Professor  Bush  speaks 
of  men  as  if  they  were  pure  intelligences,  to  whom  the  exer- 
cise of  unbiassed  reason  is  perfectly  connatural.  But  who 
can  pretend  to  estimate  the  influence  of  the  fall  in  obscuring 
man's  moral  and  intellectual  powers?  His  thoughts,  words, 
desires,  inclinations,  and  actions  all  bear  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  man  is  not  what  he  was  when  he  left  the  forming 
hand  of  his  Creator.  And  if  these  things  be  so,  then  we 
may  say  that  he  has  no  more  adequate  idea  of  that  right 
reason,  which  was  his  own  glorious  attribute  when  he  was 
first  created,  (the  broken  and  defaced  remains  of  which  alone 
he  now  inherits,)  than  he  has  of  the  paradisaical  state  from 
which  he  fell.  And  hence  the  everlasting  disputes  on  the 
subject  of  what  is  reasonable  or  unreasonable.  Had  man  still 
inherited  in  all  its  glory  this  godlike  attribute,  he  would  not 
so  much  have  needed  the  revelation  which  mercy  has  made. 
But  it  has  been  defaced  and  almost  obliterated;  and  there- 
fore Heaven  interposes  to  tell  us  what  we  otherwise  never 
should  have  known.  Hence,  the  appropriate  position  of 
reason  is  at  the  feet  of  revelation  ;  and  hence  when  the  de- 
ductions of  our  reason  plainly  conflict  with  the  clearly  ascer- 
tained testimony  of  God's  word,  the  duty  of  the  Christian  is 
not,  (as  Professor  Bush  pretends,)  to  take  God's  declaration 
"  as  type,  figure,  allegory,  metaphor,  symbol,  accommoda- 
tion,  anthropomorphism — any  thing,  rather  than  the 

DECLARATION    OF    ABSOLUTE  VERITY,"  (sCC  AnastUsiSf  PrC- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  53 

face  p.  xi.)  but  remembering  how  easy  it  is,  with  all  his  care, 
and  assistance  from  logic  and  philosophy,  to  reason  himself 
into  error  and  falsehood,  and  employ  reason  itself  in  their 
defence,  he  will  rather  suspect  that  his  deductions  are 
wrong,  even  though  his  premises  appear  impregnable;  or 
he  will  suspect  that  there  is  some  imperceptible  error  in  the 
construction  of  his  argument,  or  some  flaw  in  his  logic  which 
he  has  not  been  able  to  discover.  And  though  he  may 
still  be  unable  to  ascertain  this  flaw,  if  he  can  do  no  better 
he  will  at  the  expense  of  what  the  world  calls  consistency, 
still  maintain  that  both  the  verdict  of  revelation  and  of  rea- 
son may  be  true,  and  reconcileable,  though  he  be  unable  to 
reconcile  them.  In  a  word,  he  will  do  any  thing  rather  than 
sanction  the  preposterous  absurdity  of  supposing  that  even 
though  God  has  revealed  his  will  to  man  for  the  purpose  of 
assisting  our  reason,  which  has  been  so  bruised  and  weak- 
ened by  the  fall,  yet,  after  all,  God  may  be  wrong  and 
our  reason  may  be  right :  for  to  this  conclusion  the  princi- 
ples of  such  men  as  Professor  Bush,  (notwithstanding  a  few 
unavailing  and  most  inconsistent  disclaimers,)  must  inevita- 
bly lead. 

But  before  Professor  Bush  and  other  advocates  of  the  pre- 
eminence of  reason,  should  have  ventured  to  array  its  de- 
cisions against  the  dicta  of  revelation;  and  then  try  to 
adapt  the  latter  to  the  former,  "  because"  forsooth  *'no  two 
truths  in  the  universe  can  be  inconsistent  with  one  another," 
it  would  have  been  well  for  them  to  have  harmonized  the 
decisions  of  reason  herself,  and  to  have  shown  them  to  be 
consistent.  For  if,  with  all  our  powers  and  resources,  we 
are  not  able  to  harmonize  and  reconcile  the  plainest  decisions 
of  reason  and  science,  one  with  the  other,  how  absolutely 
vain  is  it  to  insist  upon  the  necessity  of  harmonizing  reason 
and  revelation?  And  how  utterly  unjustifiable  to  insist 
upon  adapting  Scripture  to  reason  in  all  cases  where  some 
plodding  philosopher  supposes  that  he  has  discovered  an 
"inconsistency?"  And  yet  this  is  precisely  the  position  of 
Professor  Bush's  argument  from  reason.  He  cannot  possi- 
bly understand  how  the  same  body  which  died  and  has  been 
resolved  into  its  primitive  elements,  some  of  which  may 
have  been  incorporated  with  other  human  bodies,  should  be 
raised  again  from  the  dead;  and  therefore  Scripture  must  be 
wrested  from  its  obvious  signification  until  it  asserts  some- 
thing that  he  can  understand.     The  idea  of  incorporation 

5* 


54  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

with  other  human  bodies  is  so  utterly  inconsistent  in  the 
Professor's  view,  with  the  idea  of  resurrection  and  restora- 
tion to  its  first  proprietor,  that  he  even  doubts  whether  God 
himself  can  accomplish  it.*  And  therefore  if  the  Scripture 
asserts  any  thing  so  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the  Profes- 
sor, he  can  have  no  other  resource  ("  as  no  two  truths  can 
conflict  with  each  other,")  but  so  to  pervert  it,  as  to  make 
it  speak  what  he  can  comprehend. 

But  is  this  course  itself  reasonable?  Are  the  deductions 
of  science  and  reason,  under  such  circumstances,  to  be  re- 
posed in  thus  implicitly?  If  not,  Professor  Bush  has  com- 
mitted an  egregious  error  in  demanding  so  much  for  his 
argument.  But  an  appeal  to  a  few  facts  will  enable  us  to 
place  this  matter  in  its  proper  light. 

The  doctrine  of  the  infinite  divisibility  of  matter  is  suscep- 
tible of  fuller  and  more  perfect  demonstration  than  the  hypo- 
thesis upon  which  Professor  Bush  rests  his  argument:  for 
it  rests  upon  a  chain  of  actual  mathematical  demonstration. 
The  acutest  and  mightiest  intellects  have  bowed  before  the 
argument,  and  have  conceded  that  its  conclusions  are  irre- 
sistible. May  it  not  then  be  taken  as  a  fair  and  honest  i'pse 
dixit  of  reason  and  science?  Even  Professor  Bush  will 
admit  that  it  may.  According  then  to  this  mathematical 
demonstration  a  line  of  an  inch  in  length  has  an  infinite 
number  of  parts.  Now,  Professor  Bush  himself  will  admit 
that  it  must  of  necessity  take  some  portion  of  time  to  pass 
any  portion  of  space.  Hence,  as  this  line  of  an  inch  long, 
has  an  infinite  number  of  parts,  it  requires  an  infinite  number 
of  portions  of  time  for  a  moving  point  to  pass  by  this  infinite 
number  of  parts.  But  an  infinite  number  of  portions  of  time 
is  an  eternity!  Consequently  it  must  require  a  whole  eter- 
nity to  move  an  inch! 

Now,  human  ingenuity  has  never  been  able  to  detect  a 
flaw  in  this  argument.  The  premises  appear  to  be  perfectly 
sound,  and  the  conclusion  perfectly  legitimate.  And  thus 
reaspn  and  mathematical  science  (the  most  certain  of  all 

*  "  While  we  would  not  dare  to  limit  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  or  to 
deny  that  any  thing  is  possible  to  him  which  is  possible  in  itself,  yet, 
as  we  apprehend  the  subject  before  us,  the  ideas  involved  in  the  pro- 
position of  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body  are  incompatible  per 
se.  The  real  question  is,  how  Omnipotence  itself  can  establish 
THE  relation  OF  WHICH  WE  ARE  IN  QUEST — how,  Hot  as  to  the  mawicr, 
but  as  to  the /act."     Anastasis,  pp.  56,  57. 


<*^      or  THE 

UNIVEESI 

ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  ^  ^V/  •?»     55 

sciences,)  conduct  us  irresistibly  to  a  conclusion  whTdhf  no 
man  in  his  senses  could  believe. 

Equally  conclusive  is  the  demonstration  which  proves  the 
world  to  be  merely  ideal.  The  opinion  of  the  ablest  judges 
seems  to  be,  as  Dr.  Reid  himself  admits,  that  the  arguments 
which  sustain  this  position  neither  have  been  nor  can  be  an- 
swered. And  yet  no  man  in  his  senses  can  believe  the  con- 
clusion to  which  those  arguments  lead.  And  Dr.  Reid  him- 
self could  only  rebut  these  arguments  (not  really  refute  them,) 
by  maintaining  that  the  great  masters  of  reason,  Des  Cartes, 
Malebranche,  Locke,  Berkley,  and  Hume,  had  wholly  mis- 
understood the  dicta  of  science  and  reason.  And  if  this  be 
so,  surely  we  may  ask.  What  are  the  dicta  of  reason  and 
philosophy?  How  are  we  to  ascertain  what  they  are?  And 
who  will  give  us  a  fair  representation  of  them  ? 

But  take  another  well  known  instance.  It  is  mathemati- 
cally demonstrated  that  a  straight  line,  called  the  asymptote 
of  the  hyperbola  may  eternally  approach  the  curve  of  the 
hyperbola,  and  yet  can  never  meet  it.  This  demonstration 
Professor  Bush  will  admit  to  be  sound  and  impregnable,  and 
he  will  receive  the  conclusion  as  irrefragably  true  and  cer- 
tain, on  the  evidence  produced,  though  it  does  appear  self- 
contradictory. 

Now  suppose,  for  illustration,  that  the  Bible  contained  the 
first  enunciation  of  the  axiom,  that  two  lines  which  con- 
tinually approach,  must  meet,  or  intersect  one  another,  (a 
truth  which  so  soon  as  announced,  the  common  sense  of 
every  man  admits  to  be  self-evident,)  and  that  some  learned, 
prying  philosopher  like  Professor  Bush  should  have,  in  the 
course  of  his  inquiries,  discovered  the  demonstration  of  the 
asymptote.  He  then,  laying  down  the  proposition  that  "no 
two  truths  in  the  universe  can  be  inconsistent,  or  clash  with 
each  other,"  proceeds  to  display  his  actually  mathematical 
demonstration,  and  to  exhibit  his  right  line,  and  his  curve, 
and  convinces  every  one  who  can  understand  the  language 
of  mathematical  science  that  this  right  line  may  continual- 
ly approach  nearer  the  curve  to  all  eternity  and  yet  can 
never  meet  it.  No  flaw  can  be  discovered  in  the  argument, 
no  non  seqvitur  in  the  conclusion.  And  then  with  the  full 
assurance  that  no  two  truths  in  the  universe  can  possibly 
clash  with  each  other,  this  learned  philosopher  proceeds  to 
show  that  the  announcements  of  revelation  and  those  of 
science  can  be  reconciled.     He  first  starts  with  the  propo- 


56  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

sition  that  the  knowledge  of  Revelation  is  progressive;  and 
then  lays  down  his  principles  of  accommodation,  and  finally 
so  explains  the  Bible  announcement  as  to  make  it  utter  the 
very  reverse  of  what  it  did  before. 

Would  such  a  course  be  warrantable  ?  and  would  it  be 
too  much  to  say  to  that  philosopher,  "  Sir,  you  are  proceed- 
ing too  fast,  and  your  principles  are  unsound.  It  is  true 
that  two  truths  cannot  be  inconsistent  with  each  other ;  but 
truth  itself,  and  your  view  of  truth  may  be  very  different 
things."  Professor  Bush,  I  have  no  doubt,  would  address 
this  philosopher  in  some  such  language  as  this.  And  would 
it  be  too  much  to  say  to  Professor  Bush,  who  has  pursued  a 
course  somewhat  similar,  "  Sir,  your  procedure  in  this 
matter  is  very  unreasonable  and  unphilosophical.  The  pro- 
position which  you  advance  respecting  the  incorporation  of 
a  part  of  the  human  body  with  other  substances  may  be 
strictly  demonstrable :  and  yet  the  announcement  of  Revela- 
tion respecting  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body  that  dies 
may  be  literally  true.  Your  mind  can  take  in  but  a  single 
point  of  the  vast  plain  which  lies  before  you.*  That  plain, 
sir,  is  so  extensive  (as  you  would  know  if  you  could  see  the 
whole  of  it,)  that  it  fills  up  the  whole  space  between  the 
point  which  your  eye  is  fixed  upon,  and  that  point,  the  exist- 
ence of  which  God  has  announced  to  man."  In  other  words, 
both  of  these  propositions  may  be  true,  and  we  should  see 
them  to  be  so,  had  God  made  the  subject  fully  known  to  us 
in  all  its  parts. 

Thus  also  God  is  a  sovereign — in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word  the  sovereign  of  the  universe,  controlling  all  things 
after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  And  yet  man  is  free,  and 
is  the  originator  of  his  own  actions.  But  who  has  ever  been 
able  to  reconcile  the  sovereignty  of  God  with  the  free  agency 
of  man  ?  It  never  has  been  done ;  and  perhaps  never  can 
be  in  this  world.  They  appear  to  be  wholly  subversive  of 
each  other,  and  to  "  clash"  much  more  than  the  facts  which 
Professor  Bush  has  arrayed  against  each  other.  And  yet 
both  are  received  as  true ;  and  both  are  unquestionably  true. 
And  the  reputation  of  the  philosopher  who  should  now  doubt 
of  either,  simply  because  he  could  not  reconcile  the  two, 

*  See  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  thought  here  presented,  in 
Isaac  Taylor's  "Introductory  Essay  to  Edwards  on  the  WilV* 
pp.  49—52. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  57 

would  soon  become  any  thing  but  enviable  among  intelligent 
men. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  pursue  this  subject,  yet  there  is 
one  more  point  which  we  shall  refer  to  before  concluding. 
Even  so  plain  a  subject  as  the  existence  of  motion,  presents 
difficulties  which  to  reason  are  absolutely  insuperable.  Zeno, 
the  stoic,  argued  strenuously  against  its  very  existence. 
His  objections  (one  of  which  we  have  already  referred  to 
when  speaking  of  the  infinite  divisibility  of  matter,)  are  sub- 
stantially preserved  by  Aristotle,  who  has  attempted  to  an- 
swer them  in  his  Physics,  lib.  vi.  cap.  ix.  But  his  answers 
only  show  the  utter  imbecility  of  reason  to  remove  even  the 
simplest  difficulties  which  itself  may  suggest;  for  they 
are  eminently  sophistical  and  have  done  nothing  to  increase 
the  world's  admiration  of  his  prodigious  powers.  I  will  state 
one  or  more  of  these  objections,  after  first  premising  that 
it  is  certain  that  no  part  of  time  can  co-exist  with  another 
part.  Each  must  exist  alone,  whether  it  be  a  day,  or  a  mo- 
ment, or  a  second,  or  the  smallest  conceivable  instant.  One 
moment  or  instant  must  cease  to  exist  before  another  can. 
exist.  Each  moment  or  second  is  therefore  simple  and  indi- 
visible, and  perfectly  distinct  from  time  past,  and  time  to 
come,  and  contains  no  more  than  present  time.  This  will 
not  be  disputed.  Nor  will  it  be  questioned  that  a  body  can- 
not be  in  two  places  at  once. 

Now  if  an  arrow,  which  tends  towards  a  certain  place, 
should  move  (as  it  is  called,)  it  must  move  and  rest  at  the 
same  time.  But  this  is  a  plain  contradiction,  and  therefore 
the  arrow  does  not  move.  The  reason  is  plain ;  for  the  arrow 
is  every  instant  of  time  in  a  space  equal  to  itself.  It  is 
therefore  in  that  instant  of  time  at  rest,  for  a  thing  is  not  in  a 
space  when  it  leaves  it.  And  therefore  there  can  be  no 
instant  of  time  in  which  it  moves:  for  if  it  moved  at  any 
supposable  instant,  it  would  be  at  once  in  motion  and  at  rest; 
and  this,  as  before  remarked,  i^  a  contradiction. 

Then  again:  If  there  is  motion,  the  thing  that  moves 
must  pass  from  one  place  to  another ;  for  all  motion  must 
comprehend  two  extremes,  the  terminvs  a  quo  and  terminus 
ad  quern,  the  place  from  which  it  departs,  and  that  to  which 
it  comes.  Suppose,  then,  the  distance  which  it  is  asserted 
to  move,  is  a  foot.  The  first  inch  of  this  distance  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  twelfth  by  an  infinity  of  parts,  since  matter 
(as  above  remarked)  is  divisible  in  infinitum.     How  then 


58  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

can  the  object  which  is  said  to  move,  proceed  from  one  ex- 
tremity to  the  other?  The  intermediate  space  is  composed 
of  an  infinite  number  of  parts  through  which  it  must  run 
successively,  one  after  the  other,  and  each  particle  of  matter 
must  require  a  particle  of  time  in  passing  it.  But  an  infinity 
of  particles  of  time  is  an  unending  duration.  And,  therefore, 
unless  the  object  which  moves,  can  be  in  several  places  at 
the  same  time,  it  cannot  to  all  eternity  pass  from  the  first 
inch  to  the  twelfth. 

To  these  objections  Aristotle  replies,  by  asserting  that 
time  is  infinitely  divisible.  The  falseness  of  this,  however, 
has  been  demonstrated  above.  And  a  child  can  see  that  if 
there  were  an  infinity  of  parts  in  an  hour,  it  could  never 
either  begin  or  end. 

But  again,  if  there  is  such  a  thing  as  motion,  then  the 
swiftest  body  in  motion  pursuing  the  slowest,  can  never 
overtake  it.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the  "  swift-footed 
Achilles  "  and  a  tortoise  should  run  a  race,  and  the  tortoise 
has  twenty  yards  the  start  of  Achilles.  We  will  suppose 
also  that  Achilles  moves  twenty  times  faster  than  the  tor- 
toise. Now  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  while  Achilles  moves 
twenty  yards,  the  tortoise  advances  one ;  and  therefore  she 
is  before  him  still.  And  while  he  proceeds  to  the  twenty-first 
pace,  she  will  gain  the  twentieth  part  of  the  twenty-second ; 
and  while  he  gains  this  twentieth  part,  she  will  go  through 
the  twentieth  part  of  the  twenty -first  part,  and  so  on  in  in- 
Jinitum.  He  will  never  be  able  to  overtake  the  tortoise,  but 
there  will  always  be  some  distance  between  them. 

Whole  volumes  have  been  written  in  answer  to  this  objec- 
tion with  no  better  success  than  the  above  reply  of  Aristotle. 
We  might  mention  other  objections,  and  others  also,  equally 
invincible,  against  the  very  existence  of  extension.*  But  the 
foregoing  are  sufficient  for  illustration,  and  may  serve  to 
teach  us  the  limits  of  our  understanding,  and  the  folly  of  thus 
reposing  implicit  confidence  in  the  deductions  of  reason, 
when  there  are  so  many  things  connected  with  the  plainest 
matters  with  which  we  are  conversant,  which  eflfectually 
baffle  all  our  eflTorts  to  comprehend  them.  Surely,  then,  it 
is  both  rational  and  proper  for  such  weak,  erring,  short- 
sighted mortals  to  confide  implicitly  in  the  testimony  of  an 

*  The  reader  may  find  in  Bayle,  (Crit.  Diet.  V.,  p.  609,  seq.,)  from 
whom  I  have  taken  some  of  the  foregoing  remarks,  a  brief  statement 
of  a  few  of  these  objections. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  59 

All-Wise  God,  even  though  it  should  appear  to  conflict  with 
the  deductions  of  our  reason. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  apply  these  illustrations,  though 
we  shall  do  so  briefly.  Suppose  then-^gt  some  diligent  stu- 
dent had  for  the  first  time  arrived  at-tS^foregoing  "  irrefra- 
gable deductions  of  reason."  He  becomes  at  once  fully 
satisfied  that  the  world  and  the  church  are  all  wrong  on  the 
subject  of  motion,  for  "  no  two  truths  can  be  inconsistent 
with  each  other,"  and  he  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the 
very  idea  of  motion  involves  the  most  irreconcilable  incon- 
sistencies and  contradictions.  Yet  he  is  a  firm  believer  of 
the  Bible.  And  as  he  finds  the  idea  there  asserted,  both 
positively  and  by  implication,  that  motion  does  exist,  he 
thinks  it  necessary  to  investigate  the  matter  philologically. 
He  is  satisfied,  moreover,  that  the  knowledge  of  revelation 
is  progressive,  and  he  is  not  to  be  deterred  by  such  passages 
as  Gen.  i.  2,  Levit.  xi.  10,  Deut.  xxiii.  35,  Rev.  vi.  14,  Ps. 
xix.  5,  Eccles.  i.  7,  Dan.  xii.  4,  &c.  &c.,  which  seem  to 
assert  or  imply  the  existence  of  that  which  he  is  satisfied  has 
no  existence.  He  then  girds  himself  to  the  encounter,  and 
after  presenting  the  "  argument  from  reason,"  he  gives  a 
view  of  the  Scripture  argument.  First  comes  the  plain 
declaration  in  Gen.  i.  2:  "And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  He  looks  critically  at  the 
word  moved,  im;  and  though  he  finds  it  in  the  Hithpael, 
having  the  force  of  a  reflexive  verb,  motifans  se,  he  finds 
also  that  it  will  bear  the  rendering  of  incubans,  "  The 
Spirit  of  God  brooded  over  the  abyss."  Hence  this  does 
not  prove  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  motion.  And  thus 
he  disposes  of  all  the  positive  declarations,  one  after  another; 
by  maintaining  that  the  inspired  writers  "  accommodated" 
themselves  to  the  stupidity  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived, 
and  did  not  think  about  the  generations  to  come,  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  world.  And  then  he  begins  with  the  passages 
which  simply  imply  the  existence  of  motion.  Ps.  xix.  5,  6, 
is  produced.  "  The  sun  is  as  a  strong  man  to  run  a  race; 
His  going  forth  is  from  the  end  of  heaven,"  &c.  This  cer- 
tainly seems  to  imply  the  existence  of  motion.  But  our 
philosopher  has  ascertained  that  the  sun  is  stationary.  Then 
he  inquires,  "  Must  not  this  be  figure?  It  is  ascertained 
that  the  sun  absolutely  does  not  move^  And  thus  the  other 
series  of  passages  is  disposed  of.  For  he  is  determined  to 
take  them  "  as  type,  figure,  allegory,  metaphor,  symbol, 


00  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

accommodation,  anthropomorphism — any  thing  rather  than 
the  declaration  of  absolute  verity,"  because  they  plainly  con- 
flict with  the  "dicta  of  reason;"  and  "  a/Z  truth  must  he 
const  stent. ^^  And  finally  having  laboured  through  his  argu- 
ment, and  surveying  it  with  no  small  degree  of  satisfaction, 
he  asks,  "  what  then  becomes  of  the  scriptural  evidence  of 
motion?  Does  it  not  evaporate  in  the  crucible  of  logical  and 
philological  induction  ?  And  is  it  not  inevitable  that  a  great 
change  must  come  over  our  estimate  of  the  doctrine  viewed 
as  a  disclosure  of  Holy  Writ?  Can  it  hereafter  present  the 
same  aspect  to  the  reflecting  mind  as  formerly,"  &c.  See 
Anastasis,  Preface,  p.  xi.  and  p.  347. 

Professor  Bush,  will  scarcely  need  that  I  tell  him 

—  mutato  nomine 

De  te  fabula  narratur ; 

for  with  a  trifling  qualification,  here  is  a  case  perfectly  analo- 
gous to  his  own.  The  argument  from  reason  to  disprove  the 
existence  of  motion,  is  much  more  invincible  and  impregnable 
than  Professor  Bush's  argument  from  reason,  to  disprove  the 
resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  Professor  Bush's  argument  is 
an  old,  stale,  often  refuted  argument,  while  that  in  the  illus- 
tration is  unanswerable,  so  far  as  reason  is  concerned ;  and 
we  have  supposed  it  to  be  just  discovered  by  the  philosopher 
who  uses  it.  With  these  differences  the  analogy  is  complete 
and  perfect.  One  supposition  may  be  more  obviously  ab- 
surd than  the  other,  but  the  real  absurdity  and  unreasonable- 
ness in  both  cases  are  equal. 

In  order  to  sustain  the  conclusion  of  his  worthless  argu- 
ment, Professor  Bush  has  done  the  most  revolting  violence 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  has  openly  sanctioned  the  Bible- 
subverting,  and  atheistic  neology  of  Germany.  We  shall 
have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  hereafter,  when  we  come  to 
speak  of  his  principles  of  interpretation.  He  does  not  know 
that  the  same  body  that  dies  will  not  be  raised  again  as  a 
spiritual  body,  though  his  whole  book  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  of  such  knowledge,  and  the  argument  upon  which 
this  conclusion  is  based,  is  as  perfect  a  non  sequitur,  as  the 
argumerit  against  the  existence  of  motion. 

Such  then  is  Professor  Bush's  argument  from  reason.  It 
has  no  connexion  with  the  advancement  of  our  knowledge 
of  Revelation ;  it  proves  but  a  small  portion  of  his  theory 
even  if  it  were  what  it  purports  to  be,  and  thirdly,  it  is  based 
upon  a  sophism  unworthy  of  Professor  Bush,  and  of  the 
Christian  name. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  61 

CHAPTER  IV. 

A  CONSIDERATION   OF   THE   SECOND   AND    THIRD    CHAPTERS   OF   PART    I.,  OF 
THE  WORK  OF  PROFESSOR  BUSH. 

The  titles  of  these  chapters  are  as  follows: — ^^Distinc- 
tion of  Personal  and  Bodily  Identity,''''  and  "  The  True 
Body  of  the  Resurrection  as  inferred  by  Reason:"  and  as 
they  contain  little  other  than  repetitions  of  what  we  have 
already  remarked  u])on,  we  propose  to  consider  them  here, 
in  order  to  dispose  of  all  that  he  has  offered  on  this  whole 
subject  before  we  proceed  to  remark  on  the  appropriate  office 
of  reason  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

On  the  first  of  these  subjects,  Professor  Bush  remarks  as 
follows: — "The  position  that  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  necessitates  the  belief  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
same  body,  enforces  upon  us  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
oi" identity.  We  are  at  once  arrested  by  the  inquiry,  whether 
the  identity  of  the  person  implies  the  identity  of  the  body:'^ 
(p.  58,)  and  he  proceeds  with  a  great  deal  of  speculation, 
(upon  which  we  shall  remark  presently,)  to  show  that  the 
identity  of  the  human  body  does  not  continue  to  be  the  same 
for  any  two  moments  of  time.  But  it  must  not  be  lost  sight  of 
here,  that  there  is  no  dispute  between  Professor  Bush,  and 
ourselves  in  respect  to  the  "  identity  of  the  person."  I  am 
not  aware  that  any  who  believe  in  a  resurrection,  have  ever 
questioned,  whether  the  person  who  rises  from  the  dead  in  a 
spiritual  body,  is  identically  the  same  person  who  previously 
had  lived  and  died.  The  question  is  simply  whether  the 
body  that  is  raised  a  spiritual  body,  is  the  same  body  that 
diedl  Professor  Bush  denies,  and  we  ajlrm,  that  it  is. 
And  as  Chapter  II.  of  his  book  is  professedly  designed  to 
bear  upon  this  point,  we  shall  proceed  to  ascertain  whether 
he  has  offered  any  thing  which  really  has  any  relation  to  it. 

The  following  is  a  continuance  of  the  remark  above 
quoted : — "  In  strictness  of  speech  a  body  which  is  under- 
going a  constant  change  in  its  constituent  particles  cannot 
be  said  to  be  the  same  in  any  two  successive  moments  of  its 
duration.  This  of  course  applies  to  the  human  body,  the 
component  atoms  of  which  are  in  a  state  of  ceaseless  fluc- 

6 


62  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

tuafion.  A  precise  use  of  language  will  not  warrant  the  as- 
sertion, that  our  bodies  are  the  same  this  hour  that  they  were 
the  last.  The  paring  of  a  nail,  the  clipping  of  a  hair,  leaves 
the  body  a  different  body  from  what  it  was  before  this  sub- 
duction  from  its  integrity  took  place.  It  is  true  indeed  that 
for  all  the  purposes  of  ordinary  and  popular  discourse  it  is 
perhaps  an  unexceptionable  mode  of  diction  to  say,  that  we 
have  in  mature  life  the  same  bodies  that  we  had  in  child- 
hood. But  when  we  subject  the  phraseology  to  a  rigid  lest, 
it  is  obvious  that  it  cannot  be  true.  That  cannot  be  the  same 
through  a  given  lapse  of  time  which  is  constantly  changing 
its  constituent  parts  during  that  time. 

"  How  then  is  it  possible  to  affirm,  with  philosophical  ac- 
curacy, that  I  have  the  same  body  to-day  that  I  had  twenty 
years  ago?  And  it  would  certainly  be  hard  to  show  that 
that  which  is  philosophically  false  is  theologically  true.  The 
point  before  us  is  one  on  which  we  are  at  liberty  to  insist 
upon  the  most  punctilious  exactness  of  definition." 

These  speculations,  (and  they  are  continued  through  the 
chapter,)  it  is  plain  would  prove  that  a  man  of  seventy  years, 
has  had,  not  only  "  ten  different  bodies,"  as  Professor  Bush 
asserts,  but  ten  thousand,  or  ten  hundred  thousand.  But 
how  do  these  things  bear  upon  the  point  really  before  us? 
Professor  Bush  has  taken  them  mainly  from  Locke's  Com- 
mentator, (see  Locke's  Essay,  Part  II.,  pp.  247 — 252,  and 
300 — 328,  Harper^ s  Edition,  1824,)  and  seems  to  suppose 
thnt  therefore  they  must  of  necessity  bear  upon  the  subject 
which  he  professes  to  be  discussing.  But  suppose  a  man 
has  a  different  body  every  moment  that  he  lives,  what  has 
that  to  do  with  the  question  ?  We  have  never  denied  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  never-ceasing  attrition  of  the  parts  of  the 
human  body  while  we  live,  and  admitting  it  to  be  true,  how 
does  it  affect  the  question  as  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
which  dies?  And  what  would  Professor  Bush  have  us  to 
define  with  such  "  punctilious  exactness  of  definition  ?"  We 
hold  that  the  same  body  which  dies,  is  to  be  raised  a  spirit- 
ual body  at  the  last  day ;  this  is  our  definition  of  the  resur- 
rection, and  this  definition  Professor  Bush  might  have  found 
in  every  Christian  symbol  in  the  universe. 

But  the  application  of  all  this  speculation  appears  on  page 
62.  Professor  Bush  after  making  a  long  extract  from  Bishop 
Butler  "  on  the  identity  of  plants,"  (which  contains  nothing 
but  what  every  one  admits,)  and  another  from  the  worthless 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  63 

treatise  of  Mr.  Drew,  proceeds  to  exhibit  the  bearing  of  these 
remarks  as  follows,  in  replying  to  Mr.  Drew : 

*'  But  this  river  of  ratiocination  soon  loses  itself  in  the 
sands  when  followed  down  into  the  region  of  clear  physiolo- 
gical and  psychological  induction.  Here  we  learn  that  the 
identity  of  the  body  is  one  thing,  and  the  identity  of  the 
person  another.  Without  a  clear  perception  of  this  distinc- 
tion, the  true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  will  fail  to  be  grasp- 
ed. When  once  apprehended,  we  are  immediately  freed  from 
all  embarrassment  on  the  score  of  the  unceasing  succession 
of  particles.  Affixing  the  seat  of  identity  to  the  seat  of  per- 
sonality, we  can  see  the  body  wasting  by  exhalation  and  re- 
pairing itself  by  new  accretions,  and  still  perceive  the  cen- 
tral substratum  of  our  being  remaining  unmoved,  indestruc- 
tible, and  eternal,  in  the  midst  of  all  cycles  of  change. 
Something  assuredly  there  is,  which  lives  abiding  and  un- 
touched in  the  midst  of,  and  in  spite  of,  the  incessant  flux  of 
our  corporeal  existence.  In  that  something  our  personality 
inheres,  and  to  it  our  true  identity  cleaves.  Of  the  body  we 
cannot  predicate  identity  at  all  in  any  two  successive  mo- 
ments of  its  being;  much  less  after  centurial  intervals  and 
unknown  transmutations.  It  is  a  mere  centre  of  centripetal 
and  centrifugal  particles  continually  arriving  and  departing 
without  any  permanent  stay." 

Here  we  have  it, — the  precious  germ  which  is  to  expand 
and  develope  itself  from  the  congenial  elements  furnished  by 
Professor  Bush's  book,  into  the  goodly  theory  which  he  has 
sketched  out.  Man  is  not  a  compound  being,  the  body  is  no 
part  of  him  whatever.  It  is  rather  a  state  of  being  than  a 
part  of  himself.  He  uses  it  as  an  old  man  does  his  specta- 
cles, only  till  he  gets  his  second  sight.  Then  it  is  laid  by 
as  useless  and  an  encumbrance.  And  in  order  to  perfect 
this  precious  germ  of  thought,  we  must  hold  that  Adam 
would  have  been  divested  of  his  body  whether  he  sinned  or 
not ;  that  Enoch  and  Elijah  were  divested  of  theirs,  and  our 
Saviour  of  his — for  the  body  is  no  part  of  the  person  of  any 
descendant  of  Adam.  And  then  to  complete  the  idea  in  the 
foregoing  paragraph  Professor  Bush  continues  as  follows  : 

"  What  can  any  man  make  of  the  unmodified  averment 
that  the  same  body  is  to  rise  at  some  indefinitely  future  day? 
If  a  man  rises  in  the  morning  with  a  different  body  from  that 
with  which  he  lay  down — though  he  still  remains  the  same 
person — with  what  propriety  can  he  be  said  to  rise  from  his 


64  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

grave  with  the  same  body  with  which  he  entered  it?"  pp.  62, 

63.  Not  reflecting  how  easy  it  would  be  to  return  the  ques- 
tion by  asking,  "  VVith  what  propriety  can  a  spiritual  body 
be  said  by  Professor  Bush  to  arise  from  the  grave  or  the 
sea,  &c.,  when  according  to  his  own  averment  it  never  was 
in  the  grave  or  the  sea?"  But  surely  the  question  based 
upon  the  analogy  between  sleep  and  death,  is  to  say  the 
least,  trivial :  and  Professor  Bush  could  not  even  propound 
it  without  contradicting  himself.  For  how  does  "  ^e,"  the 
person,  enter  the  grave  "  with  the  body,"  when  the  spiritual 
body,  as  the  Professor  so  repeatedly  avers,  "is  eliminated  at 
death  r 

In  view  of  this  whole  paragraph,  I  remark,  however,  that 
Professor  Bush  knows  nothing  about  ^^ personal  identity, ^^ 
nor  is  he  able  in  any  wise  to  define  it.  And  he  must  not 
think  to  draw  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  away  from  the  true  issue,  into  a  vague  and 
endless  dispute  on  that  subject.  The  Professor  supposes 
personal  identity  to  be  seated  in  "  the  spiritual  body  which 
is  in  every  man,  and  is  at  death  eliminated  from  the  corpo- 
real." And  yet  that  this  spiritual  body  "  enters  the  spiritual 
world  as  a  germ,  and  does  not  attain  to  its  perfection  at  once, 
but  that  under  appropriate  laws  it  may  gradually  elaborate 
for  itself  a  spiritual  corporeity,  from  the  spiritual  elements 
by  which  it  is  surrounded."  See  Anastasis,  p.  181.  Where, 
then,  is  this  personal  identity?  If  the  bodily  identity  of  the 
infant  is  destroyed  by  the  changes  which  take  place  in  "  the 
elaborating  of  a  body  for  maturer  age,"  what  becomes  of  the 
identity  of  Professor  Bush's  spiritual  body  (in  which  he  says 
personal  identity  itself  is  seated,)  when  "  similar  changes" 
take  place  in  it?  If  his  objections  against  corporeal  identity 
are  valid,  therefore,  they  destroy  his  theory  of  personal  iden- 
tity entirely :  if  they  are  not  valid,  surely  he  has  here  said 
nothing  which  calls  for  an  answer. 

Then  as  to  the  bearing  of  all  this  on  the  real  point  under 
discussion,  to  wit:  whether  the  body  that  is  raised  a  spiritual 
body  is  the  same  body  that  had  previously  died:  Where 
is  it  ?  Suppose  that  the  body  should  not  be  the  same  any 
two  moments  while  the  man  lives,  how  does  this  prove  that 
the  body  which  dies  will  not  be  raised  again?  Professor 
Bush  has  not  told  us,  and  neither  can  I  tell  how  such  a  con- 
clusion can  be  arrived  at  from  such  premises. 

In  the  sense  in  which  Professor  Bush  employs  the  term 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  65 

identity,  in  the  foregoing  passages,  I  cheerfully  concede  the 
truth  of  what  he  advances  with  so  much  learning,  that  our 
bodies  even  after  the  paring  of  a  nail  are  not  identically  the 
same  that  they  were  before.  I  demur  not  at  the  premises, 
but  only  at  the  conclusion.  For  how  does  all  this  go  to 
prove  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  that  dies  is  impossible, 
and  inconsistent  with  reason  ?  On  the  supposition  that  God 
has  announced  the  fact  of  its  resurrection  also,  (and  this 
presents,  as  Professor  Bush  admits,  the  true  issue  after  all,) 
is  he  not  competent  to  preserve  its  substantial  integrity  what- 
ever other  forms  its  elements  may  assume  ?  To  talk  of  its 
being  dissolved  into  gases,  and  of  those  gases  being  "  lost  in 
the  immensity  of  the  atmosphere,"  is  about  as  reasonable  as 
it  would  be  for  a  mite,  whom  we  may  suppose  to  be  one  of 
millions  which  inhabit  a  grain  of  sand,  to  speak  of  the  body 
of  a  fellow  mite  being  dissolved  and  lost  in  the  immensity  of 
the  atmosphere  of  the  grain  of  sand,  supposing  it  to  extend 
in  heiorht  to  about  the  one  hundred  and  fiftieth  part  of  the 
extent  of  its  diameter.  Does  not  Professor  Bush  know,  that 
"the  immensity  of  our  atmosphere"  and  the  immensity  of  a 
grain  of  sand  are,  so  far  as  respects  the  point  under  con- 
sideration, one  and  the  same  with  God  ? 

And  then,  as  to  identity,  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little 
account  to  the  argument  what  may  be  the  decision  of  the 
question,  whether  or  not  personal  identity  implies  corporeal 
identity  ?  The  issue  is  not  to  be  determined  by  any  such 
implication.  Yet  before  Professor  Bush  had  availed  himself 
of  such  an  implication  to  strengthen  his  theory,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him  to  have  shown  what  is  actually 
necessary  to  the  identity  of  which  he  speaks.  It  is  plain 
that  there  can  be  a  distinction  made  between  two  or  more 
objects,  only  in  respect  to  the  things  concerning  which  there 
is  a  difference  between  them.  If  they  are  perfectly  alike  in 
themselves,  still  they  must  be  distinguished  by  those  things 
called  circumstances,  as  time,  place,  &c.  For  it  is  dif- 
ference only  that  constitutes  distinction.*  And  with  Pro- 
fessor Bush  entire  sameness  must  be  predicated  of  any 
thing  before  perfect  identity  can  be  predicated  of  it.  Hence 
man's  body  cannot  be  identically  the  same  this  moment  that 
it  was  the  last,  on  account  of  the  wearing  away  and  replace- 
ment of  particles.    Such  is  his  doctrine.    And  as  he  appears 

*  See  Edwards  on  the  WiU,  Part  IV.,  §  VIII,    Works,  Vol.  II.  p. 
237.    New  York,  1830. 

6* 


66  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

to  be  fond  of  philosophy,  will  he  tell  us,  on  these  principles, 
how  a  man's  spirit  (whether  thought  be  its  essence  or  not; 
See  Anastasis,  p,  72,)  can  be  philosophically  the  same  after 
the  reception  of  knowledge  that  it  was  before?  Was  the 
spirit  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  the  same  when  he  was  a  puling 
infant,  as  when  conducting  him  step  by  step  to  the  grand 
results  of  his  Principia?  And  will  the  Professor  tell  us 
whether  the  spiritual  body  which  he  avers  is  in  the  corpo- 
real, and  in  which  identity  is  seated,  is  the  same  in  infancy 
as  in  mature  age?  Does  not  the  spiritual  body  expand  or 
keep  pace  with  the  growth  of  the  corporeal?  and  if  so,  is  it 
not  different  at  different  intervals?  And  when  it  leaves  the 
body  ^^  as  a  germ"  and  subsequently  elaborates  for  itself  a 
spiritual  corporeity,  is  not  its  identity  destroyed  according  to 
our  author?  And  then  does  not  the  acquisition  of  a  new 
thought  render  the  mind  truly  different  from  what  it  was 
before,  in  its  views,  feelings,  and  pursuits?  Is  it  not  cor- 
rectly said  to  modify  it?  And  if  there  be  this  difference  in 
the  mind  at  any  given  interval,  where  is  its  identity?  How 
can  it  be,  on  the  Professor's  principles,  the  same  mind  that 
it  was  before?  Difference  is  destructive  of  identity,  says 
Professor  Bush.  But  what  a  prodigious  difference  is  there 
between  the  mind  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  (as  above  remarked) 
in  infancy  and  in  mature  age  ?  Where  then  is  its  identity  ? 
But  Professor  Bush  will  probably  say,  "we  know  too  little 
about  the  essence  of  mind  to  enter  fully  into  such  a  dis- 
cussion." But  then,  how  much  more  do  we  know  of  the 
essence  of  matter  than  we  do  of  the  essence  of  mind  ?  Pro- 
fessor Bush  himself  will  answer :  *'  The  truth  is,  we  know 
but  little  of  the  true  nature  of  what  we  term  matter,  when 
we  come  to  its  more  refined  and  subtle  forms.  Our  ideas 
of  it  are  derived  mostly  from  its  grosser  conditions,  of  which 
we  do  not  scruple  to  predicate  inertness  as  one.  But  the 
moment  we  turn  our  eyes  to  the  process  of  vegetation, 
we  see  the  so-called  inert  mass  of  matter  putting  forth 
quickening  powers  and  evincing  qualities  entirely  at  variance 
with  our  previous  definitions.  And  so  when  .we  resolve 
solid  substances  into  gases,  we  are  confounded  to  find  that 
which  before  answered  all  our  ideas  of  matter,  apparently 
assuming  other  attributes  and  coming  under  other  laws. 
Our  knowledge  is  here  nonplussed,  and  still  the  facts  are 
palpable  to  our  senses."  Anastasis,  pp.  76,  77.  How  then 
is  the  identity  of  the  spirit  (upon  which  he  predicates  his 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  67 

idea  of  personal  identity,)  to  be  preserved  ?  When  princi- 
ples are  applied  to  a  subject  which  is  confessedly  incompre- 
hensible, for  the  purpose  of  educing  an  inference  in  support 
of  a  groundless  theory,  it  will  not  do  to  put  in  a  plea  of 
ignorance  in  order  to  save  the  inference,  when  that  inference 
is  shown  to  be  absurd  by  an  application  of  the  principles  to 
another  subject  which  is  admitted  to  be  equally  incompre- 
hensible. And  Professor  Bush  knows  not  but  that  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  that  dies,  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the 
material  that  composed  it,  and  which  shall  be  adapted  to  the 
spirit  by  being  changed  into  the  sublimest  form  of  which 
matter  is  susceptible.  In  his  whole  book  he  has  not  at- 
tempted to  show  that  such  a  supposition  is  either  unscrip- 
tural,  unphilosophical,  or  absurd. 

The  subject  of  identity  as  presented  by  Professor  Bush 
has  therefore  nothing  to  do  with  the  true  issue  before  us, 
except  by  implication.  And  then  the  proper  question  to  be 
discussed  in  reference  to  it  is  not  whether  a  man's  body 
while  he  lives,  remains  the  same  in  all  its  constituent  parti- 
cles; but  whether  its  identity  is  so  destroyed  between  death 
and  the  resurrection  as  to  be  incompatible  with  a  recall  to 
life,  and  restoration  to  its  spirit.  This  is  the  question  which 
Professor  Bush  should  have  discussed  in  the  chapter  now 
under  consideration,  if  he  wished  to  offer  any  thing  on  the 
subject  of  corporeal  identity;  but  instead  of  this  he  has  not 
even  referred  to  it.  And  what  he  has  offered  in  regard  to 
the  identity  of  the  living  body,  is  equally  destructive  of  the 
identity  of  the  soul,  and,  by  consequence,  of  his  whole  theory 
of  personal  identity.  And  here  we  leave  it,  in  order  to  take 
up  his  next  topic. 

SECTION  II. 

A  consideration  of  Professor  Bush'^s  Chapter  III. 

The  title  of  this  chapter  is  as  above  remarked,  "TAe  True 
Body  of  the  Resurrection  as  inferred  by  Reason;'''*  and  he 
commences  the  chapter  itself  with  these  remarks:  "We 
trust  it  may  not  be  forgotten  that  we  are  prosecuting  exclu- 
sively the  rational  argument*  in  respect  to  the  resurrection. 

*  This  is  true  in  more  senses  than  the  one  intended  by  the  Pro- 
fessor ;  as  a  reference  to  Wegscheider  and  others,  above  referred  to, 
will  evince. 


68  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

The  conclusions  derived  from  the  scriptural  view  of  the 
subject  will  be  matter  of  subsequent  consideration.  At  pre- 
sent we  take  philosophy  for  our  guide,  just  as  the  geologist 
takes  the  earth  for  his  theme,  and  from  its  own  phenomena 
endeavours  to  ascertain  its  past  and  future  history.  There  is 
doubtless  a  science  pertaining  to  each — a  science  yielding 
truths  in  which  the  reason,  by  the  very  laws  of  its  actings, 
must  rest  with  absolute  assurance.  These  results  of  the 
reason,  when  rightly  established,  must  agree  with  the  sense 
of  revelation,  when  rightly  understood.  As  both  reason  and 
revelation  acknowledge  the  same  Divine  Author,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  there  should  be  any  conflict  in  their  genuine  teach- 
ings. In  regard  to  the  point  in  question,  we  have  shown,  if 
we  mistake  not,  that  a  sound  and  strict  philosophy  does 
encounter  difficulties  in  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body 
which  may  be  pronounced  insuperable,  while  it  perceives 
none  in  the  resurrection  of  the  same  person.  The  nature  of 
these  difficulties  we  may  develope  a  little  more  at  length, 
and  under  somewhat  of  a  new  aspect,  with  a  view  to  come 
somewhat  nearer  to  a  conception  of  the  true  theory  of  the 
future  Kfe."  p.  67,  68. 

I  should  have  been  glad  if  Professor  Bush  himself  had 
*'  not  forgotten  "  that  he  was  professedly  "  prosecuting  ex- 
clusively the  rational  argument  in  respect  to  the  resurrec- 
tion;" for  throughout  this  whole  chapter  there  is  a  most 
uncalled  for  and  improper  intermingling  of  his  "  argument 
from  reason"  with  the  principles  of  Biblical  hermeneutics : 
an  attempt  to  interweave  them  with  no  small  degree  of 
skill,  so  that  the  reader  may  imperceptibly  be  led  to  con- 
clude that  these  principles  themselves  are  in  this  country 
recognized  as  unquestionably  correct,  and  as  based  upon 
reason  and  common  sense.  And  under  this  cover  he 
scruples  not  to  advance  the  broad  and  revolting  principles  of 
Semler's  "Accommodation  "  system.  To  call  such  a  pro- 
cedure unfair,  is  speaking  of  it  quite  too  lightly.  It  is 
most  uncandid,  and  can  admit  of  no  justification  whatever. 
Professor  Bush  knows  that  American  theologians  no  more 
recognize  these  principles  as  correct  or  consonant  with 
reason,  than  they  do  the  atheistic  ribaldry  of  Toland  or  Vol- 
taire. But  we  shall  consider  his  whole  procedure  in  respect 
to  this  matter  in  our  chapter  on  Interpretation. 

Instead  also  of  confining  himself  to  the  illustration  of  the 
proposition  announced  at  the  head  of  this  chapter,  he  has 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  69 

filled  it  with  objections  to  the  commonly  received  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection.  And  this  want  of  system  and  logical 
precision  is  glaringly  apparent  in  every  part  of  his  book. 
Hence  the  difficulty  of  replying  to  each  of  his  chapters  con- 
secutively; and  the  necessity  of  a  thorough  analysis  and 
rearrangement  of  what  he  does  offer,  in  order  to  ascertain 
its  intended  bearing  upon  the  true  issue.  Some  writers  after 
exhibiting  their  theories,  adopt  such  a  method  to  involve 
themselves  in  obscurity  like  the  scuttle-fish,  and  prevent  an 
opponent  from  following  them  ;  others,  in  order  to  leave  for 
themselves  apparent  good  reason  for  saying  that  their  book 
has  not  been  thoroughly  answered.  I  impute  neither  of 
these  designs  to  Professor  Bush;  but  I  cannot  but  wish  most 
heartily  that  his  arrangement  had  been  more  lucid.  The 
"  objections,"  &c.,  referred  to,  we  shall  pass  by  for  the  pre- 
sent, and  hereafter  consider  them  in  a  chapter  by  them- 
selves. 

The  point,  then,  which  Professor  Bush  proposes  to  dis- 
cuss, is  "  The  true  body  of  the  resurrection,  as  inferred  by 
reason ;"  and  we  shall  proceed  to  analyze  the  chapter  in 
order  to  learn  what  he  has  offered  on  this  subject.  Afier 
propounding  a  further  illustration  of  his  leading  objection 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  also 
a  suicidal  illustration  of  his  notion  of  identity,  (which  need 
not  be  here  specified,)  he  thus  proceeds  to  develope  the 
"  true  resurrection  body  as  inferred  by  reason."  *'  The 
resurrection  body  is  that  part  of  our  present  being  to  which 
the  essential  life  of  the  man  pertains.  We  may  not  be 
able  to  see  it,  to  handle  it,  to  analyze  it,  or  to  describe  it. 
But  we  know  that  it  exists,  because  we  know  that  we  our- 
selves exist.  It  constitutes  the  inner  essential  vitality  of 
our  present  bodies,  and  it  lives  again  in  another  state  because 
it  never  dies.  It  is  immortal  in  its  own  nature,  and  it  is 
called  a  body — a  spiritual  body — because  the  poverty  of 
human  language,  or  perhaps  the  weakness  of  the  human 
mind,  forbids  the  adoption  of  any  more  fitting  term  by  which 
to  express  it.  It  is,  however,  a  body  which  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  gross  material  particles  which  enter  into  the 
composition  of  our  present  earthly  tenements.  Still  we  re- 
affirm our  former  position,  that  the  truth  of  our  conclusion 
on  this  head  does  not  depend  upon  our  ability  to  define  the 
internal  nature  or  constitution  of  this  substratum  of  our 
being.     We  know  that  it  is,  whatever  be  its  essence,  and  we 


70  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

are  at  liberty  to  reason  to  it  and  from  it,  as  a  positive  exist- 
ence, the  negation  of  which  would  land  us  in  interminable 
absurdities."  p.  70. 

Then  after  discussing  the  inquiry,  whether  this  view  does 
not  resolve  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  into  that  of  im- 
mortality, he  thus  continues  on  p.  78.  "  It  would  seem  then, 
on  the  whole,  from  a  collation  of  all  the  grounds  on  which 
an  opinion  is  to  be  formed,  that  the  judgment  of  reason 
would  be,  that  a  spiritual  body  is  developed  at  death.  By 
spiritual,  in  this  connexion,  we  mean  refined,  subtle,  etherial, 
sublimated.  By  the  development  of  a  spiritual  body,  we 
mean  the  disengagement — the  extrication — of  that  psychical 
part  of  our  nature  with  which  vital  and  animal  functions 
are,  in  the  present  life,  intimately  connected,  and  which 
differs  from  the  pure  spirit,  the  intellectual  principle,  as  the 
Greek  4^^:"'  or  sensitive  principle,  differs  from  vovc,  the  self- 
conscious  intelligence.  It  is  a  tertium  quid — an  interme- 
diate something  between  the  cogitative  faculty  and  the  gross 
body.  It  is  indeed  invisible;  but  so  are  many  of  the  mightiest 
agents  in  nature,  and  so  are  many  of  the  noblest  entities  in 
the  ranks  of  created  beings."  And  in  closing  the  chapter, 
he  remarks,  (p.  84,)  "It  will  have  been  seen,  from  the  tenor 
of  the  preceding  pages,  that  the  argument  from  reason  leads 
by  fair  and  unforced  inference  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  the  doctrine  of  the  de- 
velopment of  a  spiritual  body  at  death  from  the  bodies  which 
we  now  inhabit." 

Such  is  the  sum  total  of"  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
body  as  inferred  by  reason ;"  and  it  will  be  an  interesting 
inquiry,  Hoiv  much  concern  pure  reason  has  with  these  in- 
ferences. But  before  we  proceed  with  it,  I  should  like  to 
ask  a  question  or  two  concerning  this  "  tertium  quid,''''  or 
'\''JX'^>  or  "  sensitive  principle,''''  or  "  intermediate  something 
between  the  cogitative  faculty  and  the  gross  body."  Pro- 
fessor Bush  seems  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  material  in  its 
essence,  though  not  grossly  so ;  but  as  forming  the  con- 
necting link  between  the  grosser  body,  and  the  pure  spirit ; 
and  says  that  it  is  "eliminated"  from  our  corporeal  struc- 
ture. This,  too,  he  affirms  to  be  the  seat  of  identity  as 
we  have  remarked  in  our  former  section.  Now  Professor 
Bush  repeatedly  affirms  that  the  human  body  is  entirely  re- 
newed every  seven  years ;  so  that  a  man  of  seventy  years, 
has  had  ten  entirely  distinct  bodies.     And  with  much  as- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  71 

su ranee  he  asks  which  of  these  bodies  will  be  raised  at  the 
last  day  1  intimating  that  there  is  as  much  reason  to  suppose 
that  any  one  will  be  raised  as  another,  pp.  54,  56.  This  point 
we  need  not  discuss  here ;  but  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  in- 
quire "  From  which  of  these  ten  perfectly  distinct  bodies, 
will  this  tertium  quid  be  eliminated  f  As  it  is  not  pure 
spirit,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  man  who  has  lived  seven- 
ty years  has  had  no  less  than  ten  of  these  "  tertium  quids^ 
Which  then  shall  be  the  "resurrection  body?"  and  if  the 
last,  then  what  has  become  of  the  other  nine?  And  is  this 
the  theory  by  which  Professor  Bush  is  to  obviate  all  objec- 
tions to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  by  showing  it  to  be 
perfectly  harmonious  with  reason  1  It  is  plain  that  this 
*'  sensitive  principle^^  is  either  material,  or  purely  spiritual, 
i.  e.  "  bodiless  and  formless  mensi^^  but  that  it  is  not  purely 
spiritual,  Professor  Bush  positively  asserts.  See  p.  72.  And 
if  it  be  material,  (no  matter  how  refined  and  sublimated,)  it 
is  of  course  a  part  of  the  material  body  with  which  the  spirit 
is  clothed.  In  other  words  it  must  be  matter.  If  then  it  bft 
matter,  and  if  the  material  of  man's  body  is  perfectly 
changed,  or  renewed  every  seven  years,  this  tertium  quid 
must  be  also  renewed.  And  if  it  is  renewed,  then  (not  only 
is  its  identity  gone  as  we  have  shown  in  §  1,  but)  the  man 
has  had  as  many  *'  spiritual  bodies^''  as  he  has  had  grossly 
material.  This  is  the  argument :  plain  and  palpable  in  its 
premises,  and  legitimate  in  its  conclusion.  And  we  repeat 
the  inquiry,  which  of  the  ten  *'  tertium  quids"  of  a  man  of 
seventy,  does  reason  teach  us,  will  be  the  resurrection  body  1 
Each  one  was  perfect ;  and  why  therefore  should  "  the  pre- 
ference be  given  to  the  last  of  the  series?"  And  where  are 
the  nine  others  ?  Have  they  been  "  dissolved  and  lost  in  the 
immensity  of  the  atmosphere  ?"  or  are  they  all  assembled 
at  death,  and  then  by  "  natural  laws"  enter  into  the  forma- 
tion of  the  resurrection  body  ?  Or  do  they  simply  form  that 
spiritual  substance,  or  those  "  spiritual  elements''''  from 
which  the  resurrection  ''^ germ'''  will  "gradually  elaborate 
for  itself  a  spiritual  body?"  See  p.  181.  As  Professor  Bush 
has  propounded  questions  similar  to  these  in  respect  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  at  the  same  time  professes  to 
have  shown  that  his  own  theory  is  not  liable  to  the  objec- 
tions which  he  urges  from  reason  against  the  received  doc- 
trine, but  on  the  contrary,  perfectly  harmonizes  with  reason, 
we  think  that  he  ought  by  all  means,  to  reply  to  these  inter- 


72  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

rogatories.  And  we  think  that  on  this  subject  we  are  "at 
liberty  to  insist  on  the  most  punctilious  exactness  of  dejini- 
tion^ 

But  how  does  reason  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  such  is 
the  resurrection  body  1  Does  Professor  Bush  mean  pure 
reason?  And  pray  what  does  reason  teach  of  any  resur- 
rection-state whatever  ?  Has  she  uttered  an  unquestionable 
and  unequivocal  dictum  that  man  will  live  again?  If  so, 
where  shall  we  go  to  learn  it?  To  the  French  philosophers 
of  the  last  ceniury,  who  abolished  Christianity,  burnt  the 
Bible  by  the  hands  of  the  executioner,  and  placed  at  the 
entrance  of  their  grave  yards  the  inscription  that  "  Death  is 
an  eternal  sleep  ?^^  Or  shall  we  go  to  Priestley  and  others 
who  taught  that  the  existence  of  the  soul  is  suspended  be- 
tween death  and  the  resurrection?  Reason,  they  say,  led 
them  to  this  conclusion.  Or  shall  we  go  to  the  fond  expec- 
tation of  Cicero,  who,  after  repeating  the  reasoning  of  Plato 
and  Socrates,  says,  "But  if  I  err,  in  believing  the  souls  of  men 
to  be  immortal,  1  am  willing  to  err;  nor  while  I  live  would 
I  wish  this  delightful  error  removed.  And  if  I  shall  feel 
nothing  when  dead  (as  is  thought  by  some  minute  philoso- 
phers,) I  am  not  afraid  that  dead  philosophers  shall  laugh 
at  me  for  the  error."*  This  certainly  is  very  beautiful: 
but  even  in  the  very  expression  itself,  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  Cicero  did  not  regard  the  sentiment  as  an  "  irrefraga- 
ble deduction  of  reason^  He  views  it  in  the  light  only  of 
a  pleasing  probability.  Where,  then,  shall  we  go  to  find 
the  dictum  of  reason  that  man  will  live  again  ?  Professor 
Bush  has  neither  told,  nor  can  he  tell.f     How  then  can 

*  Quod  si  in  hoc  erro,  quod  animos  hominum  immortales  esse 
credam :  libenter  erro :  nee  niihi  hunc  errorem,  quo  delector,  dum 
vivo,  extorqueri  volo.  Sin  mortuus  (ut  quidam  rainuti  Philosophi 
censent)  nihil  scntiam :  non  vereor  ne  hunc  errorem  meura  mortui 
Philosophi  irrideant.     Cato  major  suh  fine. 

t  Mr.  Locke,  who  is  Professor  Bush's  oracle,  asserts  that  natural 
reason  cannot  demonstrate  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality. 
The  schoolmen  also,  have  investigated  this  whole  subject  with  won- 
derful  acuteness.  Aquinas  attempted  to  demonstrate  the  doctrine 
from  reason ;  but  Duns  Scotus,  (endowed  with  one  of  the  most  pro- 
found  and  subtle  intellects  which  ever  fell  to  the  lot  of  humanity,) 
examined  all  his  arguments,  and  shows  that  they  utterly  fail  to  prove 
the  point,  and  can  only  render  it  credible,  rem  non  esse  demonslratam 
sed  creditam.  He  himself  propounds  twenty-one  probable  reasons  for 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  asserts  that  reason  can  prove  it  to  be 
only  probable.    The  celebrated  Cajetan  at  first  indignantly  rejected 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  73 

what  he  announces,  be  "  the  true  body  of  the  resurrection, 
as  inferred  by  reason?'*''  Surely  there  is  a  singular  medley 
here. 

Yet  perhaps  Professor  Bush  means  no  more  than  that  as 
the  Bible  has  revealed  the  fact  of  a  resurrection,  he  has  taken 
that  point ybr  granted  in  the  argument.  But  he  has  admitted 
virtually  (as  we  shall  show  hereafter,)  that  he  has  resolved 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  into  that  of  immortality, 
which  Homer,  Plato,  Cicero,  dz;c.  entertained,  (and  which 
Professor  Bush  supposes  is  taught  by  reason ;)  and  the  Bible 
announcement  of  a  resurrection,  therefore,  is  with  him, 
nothing  more  than  an  announcement  of  the  same  doctrine  of 
immortality.  Admitting  then  that  he  has,  on  the  authority 
of  scripture  and  reason,  taken  this  first  great  principle  for 
granted,  we  conie  next  to  inquire  how  Professor  Bush  has 
arrived  at  his  conclusions  respecting  this  elimination  of 
which  he  speaks  so  much?  How  has  he  learned  the  modus 
eliminandi  of  which  he  speaks  so  largely  1  How  does  rea- 
son teach  him  any  thing  of  the  nature  of  this  tertium  quid? 
or  of  the  germ  which  elaborates  for  itself  a  spiritual  corporeity 
from  the  spiritual  elements  which  surround  it?  How  does 
the  "  prosecution  exclusively  of  the  rational  argument"  lead 
to  any  such  inferences  ?  And  yet  he  asserts  *'  that  the 
argument  from  reason  leads  by  fair  and  unforced  inference 
to  the  conclusion  i  that  the  true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  developement  of  a  spiritual  body  at  death 
from  the  bodies  which  we  now  inhabit."  See  p.  84.  And  as 
it  is  on  these  assumptions  that  Professor  Bush  has  attempted 
to  unsettle  the  minds  of  men  on  the  subject  of  the  received 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  arraigns  that  doctrine  itself 
as  irreconcilably  inconsistent  and  absurd,  it  would  be  par- 
donable were  we  to  remark  with  severity  upon  such  a  grave 
procedure,  based  upon  such  shallow  and  utterly  fanciful 
hypotheses.  The  "  conclusions^^  of  his  argument  are  mere 
baseless  assumptions:  and  reason  has  never  uttered  what  he 
has  so  pompously  announced  as  the  dicta  of  reason. 

Man  is  immortal,  says  Professor  Bush  ;  and  therefore  he 

this  opinion,  but  after  a  thorough  examination  embraced  it,  and  as- 
serted that  "  he  believed^  indeed,  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  but  did 
not  know  that  it  is  so."  Credo  quidem  animam  rationalem  incor- 
ruptibilem  esse^  at  nescio  tamen.  But  Professor  Bush  appears  to  have 
no  difficulty  whatever  in  conducting  reason  to  any  conclusion  which 
his  theory  may  stand  in  need  of. 

7 


74  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

does  not  all  die  when  the  body  dies.  And  if  so,  his  spiritual  or 
psychical  nature  must  survive  the  death  of  the  body.  Hence 
at  death,  there  is  a  separation  of  the  tertium  quid,  and  of 
the  spirit  from  the  gross  corporeal  structure.  And  there- 
fore the  developement  of  this  spiritual  body  at  death,  is  the 
true  resurrection.  Here  is  the  argument  and  the  "  infer- 
ence;^^ and  this  is  the  true  body  of  the  resurrection  inferred 
by  reason !  Never  was  there  a  more  perfect  non  sequitur — 
or  a  greater  hiatus  between  premises  and  conclusion.  Rea- 
son knows  nothing  of  this  tertium  quid;  and  knows  not  but 
that  the  pure  spirit  is  separated  from  the  body  at  death;  it 
knows  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  spiritual  existence;  and  it 
knows  nothing  as  to  the  time,  nature,  mode,  or  any  thing 
else  belonging  to  the  resurrection  ;  much  less  does  it  know 
that  this  "  developement  at  deatW  is  "  the  resurrection.'''' 
And  yet  Professor  Bush  scruples  not  to  aver  that  reason  has 
conducted  him  to  these  inferences.  And  it  is  to  these  "  infer- 
ences''' that  he  proposes  to  *'  accommodate"  the  unambiguous 
declarations  of  God's  word,  in  order  that  they  may  utter  a 
sentiment  consonant  herewith.  It  is  on  the  strength  of  such 
notions  of  mere  fancy  that  the  doctrine  of  a  judgment  to 
come,  must  be  virtually  explained  away,  and  Christ's  resur- 
rection in  the  flesh  utterly  discarded  ! 

Other  subjects  introduced  into  this  chapter,  will  be  at- 
tended to  in  their  proper  order.  But  before  we  proceed  to 
the  remaining  parts  of  Professor  Bush's  book,  (we  have  now 
arrived  at  the  end  of  Part  I.,)  we  shall  proceed  to  consider 
the  objections  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
which  he  has  suggested  in  the  chapters  which  we  have 
examined ;  and  which  we  could  not  notice  as  they  occurred 
without  deviating  too  widely  from  the  true  issue  involved  in 
the  discussion  of  the  argument  from  reason. 


CHAPTER  V. 

PROFESSOR    bush's   "  OBJECTIONS   FROM    REASON "   TO   THE   RECEIVED  DOC- 
TRINE  OF   THE   RESURRECTION   CONSIDERED. 

His  repeated  denial  (in  the  Preface,  and  throughout  the 
first  part  of  his  book,)  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  cannot  of  course  be  con- 
sidered here.     The  proper  place  for  remarking  upon  it  will 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  75 

be  when  we  discuss  the  scriptural  argument.  But  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  objections  which  he 
professes  to  found  upon  reason  itself. 

Objection  I.  The  first  objection  is  in  the  following  lan- 
guage: "  Should  it  be  replied,  in  general  terms,  to  our 
question,  that  the  truth  claiming  credence  is,  that  the  body 
which  we  consign  to  the  dust  is  again  to  be  raised  and 
reanimated  at  some  future  day;  we  rejoin  at  once,  that  this 
reply  does  not  cover  the  ground  of  the  difficulty.  The 
simple  assertion  that  the  dead  body  is  to  be  raised  does  not 
constitute  an  intelligible  proposition,  for  the  reason  that  it 
leaves  it  utterly  uncertain  what  body  is  meant.  A  resur- 
rection is  indeed  predicated  of  a  body,  but  this  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  our 
inquiry  cannot  possibly  be  satisfied  without  a  more  minute 
specification.  No  fact  in  physiological  science  is  better 
ascertained,  than  that  the  human  body,  in  regard  to  its  con- 
stituent particles,  is  in  a  state  of  constant  flux."  And  then 
after  stating  thus  his  argument  from  reason^  he  continues  his 
objection  as  follows :  "  The  phrase,  the  body,  does  not  accu- 
rately represent  the  object  intended,  if  the  idea  conveyed  by 
it  be  restricted  to  the  body  as  existing  at  any  one  moment. 
The  idea  of  existence  in  continuity  is  indispensable  to  it. 
The  question  then  again  recurs — what  body  is  to  be  raised? 
A  person  who  dies  at  the  age  of  seventy  has  had  ten  dif- 
ferent bodies,"  &c.  &c.  See  the  rest  of  this  objection  quoted 
in  our  statement  of  his  Argument  from  Reason. 

In  reply  to  this  objection  I  remark  that  "  the  truth  claim- 
ing credence"  is  that  the  body  which  dies  shall  be  raised 
from  the  dead,  and  re-united  to  the  spirit.  And  how  does 
the  foregoing  objection  militate  against  this  truth?  The 
objection  is,  that  while  a  man  lives  the  particles  of  his  body 
are  in  a  continual  flux.  But  the  point  is  not  respecting  the 
body  of  the  living  man  but  of  the  dead.  The  attrition  and 
replacement  of  the  particles,  to  which  Professor  Bush  refers, 
cease  at  death,  and  therefore  the  reply  of  the  Professor  is 
entirely  aside  from  the  question.  He  will  not  deny  that 
whatever  change  may  take  place  in  the  body  after  death,  its 
constituent  particles  remain  the  same. 

And  then  again,  as  we  have  remarked  a  page  or  two 
back,  by  this  mode  of  reasoning  Professor  Bush  has  raised 
a  spectre  which  he  cannot  lay  without  abandoning  his  posi- 
tion altogether,  and  admitting  the  objection  to  be  unsound. 


76  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

If  the  gross  material  body  thus  changes,  the  refined  material 
tertium  quid  must  likewise  change.  And  if  the  fact  of 
such  a  change  in  the  gross  body,  furnishes  ground  for  the 
question,  "  which  of  these  bodies  shall  be  the  resurrection 
body?"  it  furnishes  ground  also  for  the  question,  "  which  of 
these  tertium  quids  shall  be  the  tertium  quid  of  the  resurrec- 
tion ?"  Nor  will  it  do  for  Professor  Bush  to  say  that  the 
gross  body  dies,  while  the  tertium  quid  remains  alive ;  and 
that  therefore  the  question  does  not  apply  to  it,  with  the 
same  force  as  to  the  gross  body  which  actually  dies  and 
becomes  dissolved :  For  1 .  We  have  seen  that  this  tertium 
quid  is  material;  (Professor  Bush  admits  that  it  is  not  pure 
spirit,  and  it  cannot  of  course  be  a  mixture  of  each;)  arid  if 
so,  it  is  properly  a  part  of  the  material  body,  refined  or 
unrefined.  Now  how  does  Professor  Bush  know  that  all 
which  is  material  in  man,  does  not  die  at  death  ?  If  the 
tertium  quid  is  spirit,  then  there  are  two  pure  spirits  in 
man,  the  one  united  to  the  other,  (which  the  Professor 
would  not  believe ;)  but  if  it  be  material,  then  it  is  a  part  of 
our  material  or  corporeal  structure:  and  if  so,  why  should 
it  not  die?  Where  is  Professor  Bush's  proof  that  it  does 
not  die?  The  baseless  assumption  of  such  an  idea  in  a 
discussion  where  so  much  depends  upon  that  idea,  is  rather 
too  grave  a  procedure  to  be  allowed.  We  ask  for  the  proof 
that  any  part  of  man  except  his  spirit,  (wholly  disengaged 
from  matter,)  survives  the  death  of  the  body.  But  2.  "Why 
should  the  preference  be  given  to  the  last  tertium  quid  in 
the  series  "  of  an  old  man  of  seventy  or  eighty,  instead  of 
the  full  and  vigorous  one  which  he  possessed  at  the  age  of 
twenty-eight,  or  thirty-five,  or  forty-two?  for  at  each  of 
these  periods  it  was  entirely  renewed  according  to  Professor 
Bush.  And  certainly  it  is  as  easy  for  God  to  give  him  such 
an  one,  as  to  give  him  the  feeble  one  of  seventy  or  eighty 
years.  And  God  who  established  the  laws  of  nature,  could 
just  as  easily  have  ordered  that  the  one  which  the  man  had 
at  the  age  of  forty-five,  should  be  "  by  natural  laws  elimi- 
nated," as  the  one  which  he  has  at  eighty.  Whatever 
other  persons  may  think  of  the  relevancy  of  these  queries, 
Professor  Bush  will  see  their  relevancy,  and  the  necessity 
of  replying  to  them,  inasmuch  as  he  has  propounded  similar 
ones  respecting  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Then  3.  The 
fact  of  this  seven  year's  renewal  of  the  corporeal  structure 
of  man,  (upon  which  the  Professor  has  based  not  only  this 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED,  77 

objection,  but  his  entire  argument  from  reason,)  is  but  a 
mere  hypothesis.  It  by  no  means  possesses  that  full  amount 
of  demonstrative  evidence  which  Professor  Bush  claims  for 
it.  I  have  all  along  consented  to  take  it  for  granted ;  lest  I 
should  appear  to  be  captious.  But  I  repeat,  that  there  is  no 
such  overvi^ helming  evidence  of  its  truth  as  Professor  Bush 
pretends.  It  has  been  taken  for  granted  by  great  and  good 
men  for  centuries ;  but  this,  with  the  Professor,  is  no  evi- 
dence of  its  truth.  For  on  such  evidence  we  can  soon 
establish  "irrefragably"  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  It  is  true  that  this  hypothesis  of  the  seven  years 
renewal  of  our  bodies  has  been  "  seldom  interrogated^''''  and 
it  is  not  my  intention  to  "interrogate"  it  now;  but  I  hope 
Professor  Bush  will  fully  establish  it  before  he  builds  so 
much  upon  it  as  he  does.  For  upon  this  mere  assumed  idea 
the  whole  received  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
and  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  &c.,  must  be  changed. 
Then  in  the  next  place  this  hypothesis  is  uncertain.  Pro- 
fessor Bush  knows  that  physiologists  have  never  been  able 
to  ascertain  the  time  of  this  supposed  renewal.  It  has  varied 
from  one  year  to  twenty  and  upwards.  Some  contend  that 
the  renewal  is  completed  in  one  year,  and  others  not  until 
twenty  times  one — some  more  and  others  less.  Where 
then  is  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  a  little  longer  time 
may  be  requisite,  or  that  an  entire  change  does  not  take 
place  through  life.  The  assertion  of  Professor  Bush,  that 
an  entire  change  takes  place  every  seven  years,  he  can 
therefore  never  prove.  The  idea  is  a  mere  hypothesis;  and 
even  admitting  that  the  particles  of  the  body  may  entirely 
change,  it  is  not  known  how  long  a  time  is  requisite  in  order 
to  make  the  change  complete. 

Objection  II.  On  p.  40,  the  Professor,  after  quoting  Pear- 
son on  the  Creed,  remarks  as  follows :  "  Can  any  one  he- 
lieve  in  opposition  to  his  positive  knowledge?  Now  we 
knoio  that  the  bodies  deposited  in  the  graves  are  not  the 
same  bodies  with  those  that  previously  existed  in  the  order 
of  physical  succession.  If  the  language  above  quoted  be 
construed  in  the  utmost  strictness  of  its  import,  it  forces  upon 
us  the  conclusion,  that  the  identical  body  from  which  the 
soul  took  its  departure  at  the  hour  of  death,  is  the  body  the 
particles  of  which  are  to  be  re-collected  and  re-constructed 
at  the  era  of  the  resurrection.  But  why  shall  the  preference 
be  given  to  these  particular  bodies,  when,  as  is  well  known, 

7* 


78  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

they  are  often  withered  and  wasted  by  consumptions,  swol- 
len by  dropsies,  mangled  by  wounds,  made  hideous  by  de- 
formities, curtailed  of  limbs,  or  become  partially  putrid  by 
gangrenes?  If  the  material  particles  of  the  body  are  to  be 
reassembled  at  all,  why  not  rather  suppose  that  it  will  be 
those  which  composed  it  in  the  period  of  its  prime,  in  its 
utmost  vigour  and  beauty?" 

To  this  objection  several  things  may  be  said.  1.  Profes- 
sor Bush  does  not  possess  the  knowledge  which  he  here  so 
boldly  arrogates  to  himself.  He  does  not  knoiu  that  the 
body  deposited  in  the  grave  is  not  the  body  which  had  pre- 
viously existed  for  ten  or  twenty  years.  The  fact  is  gene- 
rally conceded,  but  Professor  Bush  does  not  know  it  to  be  as 
he  assumes.  2.  As  to  the  question,  "  Why  should  the 
preference  be  given  to  the  body  that  died,  rather  than  to  that 
which  the  man  had  in  his  greatest  beauty  and  vigour  ?"  I 
remark  Jirst,  that  it  proceeds  upon  the  same  assumption. 
Secondly.  If  the  assumption  be  incorrect  and  unfounded,  the 
query  needs  no  answer:  but  if  it  be  well-founded,  then  let 
Professor  Bush  tell  us  why  the  preference  should  be  given 
to  the  last  tertium  quid  of  the  series,  and  we  will  tell  him 
why  the  preference  is  given  to  the  last  body  of  the  series. 
Thirdly.  On  the  supposition  that  God  has  announced  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  that  dies,  it  is  of  not  the  least 
consequence  whether  we  can  or  cannot  tell  why  he  prefers 
it.  The  question  therefore  presents  no  true  issue,  and  in- 
volves no  principle  that  has  any  bearing  on  the  subject. 
For  suppose  we  could  not  tell  why  he  prefers  it,  would  this 
prove  that  he  did  not  prefer  it  ?  Fourthly.  Why  was  the 
preference  given  to  the  body  of  Christ,  "  which  was  the  last 
of  the  series;"  or  to  those  of  Enoch  and  Elijah?  or  those 
mentioned  in  Matt,  xxvii.  52,  53?  In  a  discussion  of  so 
much  importance  as  the  present.  Professor  Bush  ought  not 
to  endeavour  to  perplex  it  by  propounding  such  irrelevant 
questions.     But  let  us  hear  his 

Objection  III.  The  passage  quoted  above  continues  thus: 
"  But  the  truth  is,  the  whole  theory  proceeds  upon  a  funda- 
mental fallacy  which  a  single  glance  of  the  mental  eye 
detects.  The  resurrection  body  is  to  be  a  spiritual  and  not 
a  material  body.  The  reassemblage  of  material  particles 
can  result  only  in  the  reconstruction  of  a  material  body,  and 
a  material  body  cannot  be  at  the  same  time  spiritual;  at 
least  we  may  confidently  affirm  that  the  same  material  body 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  79 

cannot  be  at  the  same  time  spiritual,  although  we  are 
aware  that  Paul's  expression,  *  a  spiritual  body,'  is  under- 
stood by  some  to  denote  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses, 
instead  of  implying  one  that  is  metaphysically  spiritual  in 
contradistinction  from  material.  But,  taken  in  either  sense, 
the  assertion  above  quoted  involves  contradictory  ideas.  A 
material  body  is  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood ;  but  '  flesh  and 
blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.'"  p.  40. 

It  certainly  is  not  usual  for  controvertists  to  refute  their 
own  objections ;  yet  such  is  the  fact  in  the  case  before  us. 
The  "  fundamental  fallacy  which  a  single  glance  of  the 
mental  eye  detects,"  is  that  the  reconstruction  of  the  body 
that  dies,  would  necessarily  infer  that  the  resurrection  body 
would  be  a  material  body,  when  the  word  of  God  declares 
that  it  will  be  a  spiritual  body — using  material  as  the 
antithesis  of  spiritual.  And  then  after  pointing  out  this 
"fallacy,"  Professor  Bush  very  obligingly  remarks,  that 
*'  spiritual  body  "  may  mean  "  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual 
uses;"  and  of  course,  therefore,  it  may  be  material.  Where 
then  is  this  "fallacy?"  Professor  Bush  has  thoroughly 
neutralized  his  own  objection.  And  I  shall  show  in  its 
proper  place,  that  the  true  scriptural  import  of  "  spiritual 
body,"  is  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses. 

But  again :  Professor  Bush  plainly  affirms  above  that  "  the 
resurrection  body  is  to  be  a  spiritual  and  not  a  material 
body."  Now  light  and  darkness,  cannot  be  more  opposite 
than  spirit  and  matter.  If,  therefore,  the  resurrection  body 
is  spirit,  then  we  have  a  spirit  joined  to  a  spirit.  And  fur- 
ther— If  it  be  spirit,  what  has  become  of  Professor  Bush's 
tertium  quid  ?  or  something  between  matter  and  spirit,  so  to 
speak?  And  further  still,  what  becomes  of  his  definition  of 
"  spiritual,"  on  p.  78?  "  By  spiritual,  in  this  connexion,  we 
mean  refined,  subtle,  ethereal,  sublimated."  If  the  Professor 
cannot  write  without  thus  contradicting  himself,  he  must  not 
think  it  strange  that  others  contradict  him. 

And  again — He  remarks  in  the  concluding  part  of  the 
foregoing  objection  that  "  a  material  body  is  a  body  of  flesh 
and  blood :  but  '  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God.' "  But  we  have  proved,  on  Professor  Bush's  own 
principles,  that  the  tertium  quid  which  constitutes  his  resur- 
rection body,  is  itself  material:  and  therefore,  if  this  objec- 
tion be  valid,  how  can  such  a  body  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God?    But  the  Professor  does  not  here  explain  what  is 


80  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

meant  by  "  flesh  and  blood :"  this  we  shall  do  when  we 
come  to  investigate  the  scriptural  argument. 

Objection  IV.  The  next  objection  is  based  upon  the 
alleged  difficulty  arising  from  the  supposed  assimilation  of 
the  dead  body  with  other  bodies,  after  it  is  resolved  into  its 
first  elements.  The  inferences  from  this  objection,  which 
Professor  Bush  so  firmly  relies  on,  we  have  fully  considered 
in  a  former  chapter ;  and  we  shall  therefore  dismiss  it  here 
with  but  a  few  remarks. 

If  God  has  announced  that  the  body  which  dies  shall  be 
raised  again,  few  will  doubt  that  he  is  fully  able  to  verify 
his  announcement.  Hoio  he  will  do  it,  or  can  do  it,  are 
questions  of  no  importance  whatever.  The  question,  there- 
fore resolves  itself  into  one  of  pure  exegesis — Has  he  so 
declared?  And  the  proper  place  for  the  discussion  of  this 
question  is  of  course  not  here.  It  is  scarcely  a  justifiable 
method  for  an  intelligent  Christian  to  pursue,  in  explaining 
the  word  of  God,  first  to  try  to  prove  that  a  thing  cannot  be 
done ;  and  then  to  infer  that  God  could  not  have  promised 
to  perform  it.  And  yet  this  is  the  course  which  Professor 
Bush  has  not  scrupled  to  adopt  throughout  the  work  before 
us. 

But  no  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  known  to  me,  has  ever  supposed  that  any  thing  more 
of  the  body  is  preserved  than  is  essential  to  its  substantial 
integrity ;  or  than  is  sufficient  to  identify  substantially  the 
body  that  is  raised  with  the  body  that  died.  But  few  bodies 
comparatively  have  been  "  devoured  by  cannibals ;"  and  of 
those  ^ew^  only  a  small  portion  of  the  devoured  body  has 
become  incorporated  with  the  bodies  of  the  cannibals.  And 
suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  this  small  por- 
tion is  never  restored,  it  would  not  affect  the  integrity  of  the 
body  so  much,  perhaps,  as  the  loss  of  twelve  or  fifteen 
ounces  of  blood,  would  that  of  Professor  Bush.  And  it  does 
seem  to  me  utterly  unworthy  of  a-  man  of  Professor  Bush's 
attainments,  to  dwell  upon  this  point  as  he  does,  and  to  at- 
tempt to  make  so  much  out  of  a  matter  so  perfectly  trivial. 

Objection  V.  "  What  relation  exists  between  the  original, 
putrefied,  decomposed,  and  dissipated  body,  and  the  sublima- 
ted, glorious,  incorruptible  fabric  which  is  to  succeed; — 
what  the  relation  in  virtue  of  which  I  can  call  such  a  body 
mine,  and  say,  'Behold  my  body  raised  from  the  tomb 
and  animated  anew.'  "  p.  44.     And  the  Professor  does  not 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  81 

hesitate  to  aver  that  no  such  relationship  exists.  On  this 
score,  says  he,  "  the  common  view  of  the  resurrection  la- 
bours fatally  J'^  p.  43. 

This  query  also  resolves  itself  into  one  of  exegesis.  If 
God  has  said  that  the  body  which  dies  shall  be  raised,  it  is 
of  but  little  consequence,  whether  we  can  or  cannot  "  con- 
ceive" how  or  wherein  this  relation  subsists.  But  Professor 
Bush  would  have  done  well  to  have  told  what  he  meant  pre- 
cisely by  the  term  relation  as  thus  applied.  It  is  very  easy 
to  propound  a  query  and  represent  it  as  to  the  point,  and  diffi- 
cult to  be  answered,  by  employing  an  abstract  term  in  an 
undefined  sense.  Suppose  I  should  ask  Professor  Bush  what 
•was  the  relation  that  existed  between  the  glorified  body  of 
Elias,  and  the  body  in  which  he  endured  hunger  and  thirst 
and  suffering  on  earth?  or  what  was  the  relation  between 
the  glorious  transfigured  body  of  Jesus  on  Tabor,  and  his 
poor,  suffering,  scourged  and  afflicted  body?  How  can  we 
conceive  of  human  flesh  becoming  thus  glorious?  Could 
Professor  Bush  explain  it?  Charcoal  is  the  same  as  the 
diamond  in  substance :  and  yet  one  is  the  hardest  and 
most  glittering  substance  that  we  know,  and  the  other  as 
black  and  crumbling  also  as  any  thing  known  to  us.  And 
the  difference  consists  simply  in  a  different  arrangement  of 
the  particles.  But  suppose  that  some  acute  genius  should 
imagine  that  they  are  not  the  same?  And  suppose  he  should 
write  a  book  on  the  subject  against  Professor  Bush,  and  in 
discussing  the  subject  should  ask  him,  by  way  of  justifying 
the  denial  of  the  proposition,  "  What  conceivable  relation  can 
exist  between  charcoal  and  the  diamond  ?  The  theory  la- 
bours fatally  here."  Would  Professor  Bush  think  such  a 
question  worthy  of  a  reply?  and  if  he  did,  what  answer 
would  he  make  to  it  ? 

But  again.  On  the  principle  of  the  attrition  and  renewal 
of  the  body  once  a  year,  or  once  in  seven  years,  during  life, 
(which  Professor  Bush  asserts  is  so  clearly  proved,)  the 
Professor  has  never  had  a  body  which  has  not  been  col- 
lected from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth.  Whence  are  our 
rice,  sugar,  waterfowl,  fish,  &c.  &c.?  Vegetation  too  is  fed 
by  the  showers,  and  whence  is  the  rain  collected?  Now 
the  assimilation  of  all  these  diverse  particles  with  our  bodies 
is  altogether  the  work  of  God.  And  will  Professor  Bush 
say  that  it  is  more  difficult  for  God  to  reconstruct  our  bodies, 
than  thus  to  construct  them  at  first  ? 


82  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

Our  body  which  dies,  therefore,  was  once  ours:  and  by 
virtue  of  this  relation,  it  shall,  according  to  the  word  of  God, 
be  ours  again. 

Objection  VI.  The  next  objection  contains  a  reference  to, 
and  a  slight  discussion  of,  our  Saviour's  remarks  in  John  v. 
28,  29.  Professor  Bush  speaks  as  follows:  "  In  the  present 
instance  it  is  unquestionable,  that  the  words  quoted  from  our 
Saviour's  address  to  the  Jews  do  encounter  a  very  formida- 
ble difficulty  arising  from  the  indubitable  fact,  that  thousands 
and  millions  of  human  bodies  that  were  once  deposited  in 
graves  are  not  there  now,  and  never  will  be  again.  Their 
tombs  are  cenotaphs,  or  empty  monuments,  in  every  sense 
of  the  word.  Where  now  are  the  tenants  of  hundreds  of 
the  cemeteries  of  Egypt,  whose  mummy-remains  have  been 
from  age  to  age  consumed  for  fuel,  or  transferred,  in  the 
form  of  medicine,  to  the  jars  upon  the  apothecaries'  shelves  ? 
They  certainly  are  no  longer  to  be  found  in  the  rocky 
repositories  in  which  they  were  piously  bestowed  by  the 
hands  of  survivors.  When  our  Lord's  language,  therefore, 
is  applied  to  cases  like  these,  and  it  is  affirmed  that  these 
bodies  are  to  be  raised  out  of  their  graves  at  the  last  day, 
how  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  fact  now  adverted  to  ? 
Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  is  an  infidel  objection,  pr.  mpted 
by  a  proud  preference  of  human  reason  to  the  teachings  of 
inspired  wisdom.  The  question  is.  Is  it  a  valid  objection  ? 
If  so,  it  is  entitled  to  regard,  by  whomsoever  proposed. 
Nothing  is  gained  by  blinking  or  blackening  the  allegation 
of  real  difficulties  in  any  part  of  the  sacred  writings."  pp. 
45,  46. 

But  it  is  peculiarly  unfortunate  for  this  objection,  that 
our  Saviour  does  not  use  any  such  words  as  are  here  attri- 
buted to  him.  How  then  can  his  words  "  encounter  a  very 
formidable  difficulty?"  Jesus  does  not  say  that  "all  are 
in  their  graves,"  as  tlie  objection  throughout  represents  him 
as  saying;  but  simply  that  "all  toho  are  in  their  graves 
shall  hear  his  voice  and  come  forth."  And  if  Professor 
Bush  had  turned  to  Rev.  xx.,  he  would  have  found  that 
not  only  the  graves  will  give  up  their  dead,  but  "the  sea" 
also,  at  the  great  day  of  account.  I  doubt  whether  any 
one  can  peruse  the  foregoing  futile  objection  of  Professor 
Bush,  without  feeling  assured  that  he  must  have  been  hard 
pressed  for  something  to  say  against  the  doctrine  which 
he  was  opposing.     And  though  it  would  not  be  speaking  of 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  83 

it  at  all  too  severely  to  call  it  puerile,  the  Professor  even 
descends  to  insist  upon  it  through  one  or  two  pages  more; 
and  asks  again,  "  How  can  a  body  come  out  of  the  grave 
that  is  not  there  ?"  &c.  &.c.,  pp.  46-48. 

He  then  returns  to  his  old  objections  (which  we  replied 
to  above,)  and  clothing  them  anew,  presents  them  with 
other  illustrations.  I  will  notice  one  or  more  of  them.  He 
says,  "  Again  then  we  ask,  What  is  meant  by  the  resurrection 
of  the  body,  and  what  the  relation  which  the  body  that  dies 
bears  to  the  body  that  is  raised?  We  cannot  convict  our- 
selves of  irreverence  in  proposing  these  questions.  They 
are  forced  upon  us  by  the  very  laws  of  that  reason  with 
which  the  Creator  has  endowed  us,  and  with  which  the  dicta 
of  revelation,  when  rightly  understood,  must,  by  inevitable 
necessity,  accord.  If  the  announcements  of  that  holy  vo- 
lume can  only  be  received  by  the  surrender  of  our  intelli- 
gence, and  by  a  violent  suppression  of  the  voice  which  it 
utters,  how  is  it  ever  to  command  the  assent  of  any  but 
minds  of  the  lowest  order  ? 

"  But  suppose  that  a  kernel  of  corn  were  planted  to-day 
in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  where  it  undergoes  the  usual 
process  of  decomposition,  and  a  century  hence,  without  any 
removal  of  the  dust,  a  stalk  of  corn  should  spring  up  on  the 
plains  of  Hindostan,  and  we  should  be  told  that  that  was  the 
product  of  the  seed  dropped  in  the  soil  of  the  Western  con- 
tinent, could  we  comprehend  the  possibility  of  the  fact? 
Could  we  perceive  the  relation  of  the  two  ?  Now  this  pre- 
sents very  fairly  the  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  body.  The  difficulty  arises  from  the  break  in  the 
continuity  of  the  vital  operations."  &c.  &c.  pp.  50,  51. 

1.  But  once  for  all,  I  may  be  permitted  here  to  remark, 
that  the  intimation  in  the  first  paragraph  of  this  extract,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  can  only  be  en- 
tertained by  a  surrender  of  our  reason,  (an  intimation  which 
is  repeated  perpetually  through  Professor  Bush's  whole  book,) 
is  as  unbecoming  in  its  author,  as  it  is  unkind  and  offensive 
to  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  referred  to.  I  meet  it  with 
a  broad  denial,  and  a  challenge  of  the  proof  on  which  it  is 
based.  To  assume  such  a  proposition,  and  repeat  it  as  Pro- 
fessor Bush  does,  without  attempting  its  proof,  is  not  the  way 
to  conduct  a  discussion  in  the  present  age. 

2.  There  is  one  point,  also,  which  Professor  Bush,  in 
this,  and  in  all  his  objections  constantly  loses  sight  of.     It 


84  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

is  referred  to  in  the  latter  part  of  the  above  quotation,  and 
refers  to  the  kernel  of  corn  supposed  to  be  planted  in  the  val- 
ley of  the  Mississippi.  As  presented  by  Professer  Bush,  it 
does  not  exhibit  the  true  issue.  The  question  is  not  whether 
"we  could  comprehend  the  possibility  of  the  fact,"  should 
we  "  be  told'''  that  the  stalk  of  corn  "  springing  up  on  the 
plains  of  Hindostan  was  the  product  of  that  seed  ;"  but  whe- 
ther we  should  believe  it  if  God  were  to  assure  us  that  such 
was  really  the  fact  ?  We  might  not  be  able  to  comprehend 
the  manner  of  its  transfer ;  but  would  Professor  Bush  refuse 
to  believe  the  assurance  of  God  that  it  was  really  the  same  1 
If  he  would  not,  let  him  fearlessly  assert  it:  but  if  he  would, 
where  is  the  propriety  or  the  force  of  his  objection  1 

3.  But  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  resurrection  body 
to  the  body  that  died;  it  exists  in  the  deathless  spirit  itself. 
And  why  need  Professor  Bush  endeavour  to  perplex  a  ques- 
tion so  plain  1  Let  him  answer  this  question ;  Does  the  soul 
or  spirit  sustain  no  relation  to  the  constituent  particles  of  the 
body  that  dies  ]  or  if  he  please,  to  that  body  itself?  Even 
Professor  Bush  must  admit  that  it  does.  We  then  inquire 
when  can  this  relation  to  those  particles  cease?  Suppose 
the  body  to  be  burned  to  ashes,  or  dissolved  in  anyway,  and 
unless  the  particles  themselves  are  annihilated,  how  can  this 
relationship  be  lost  ?  It  is  true  the  particles  which  constitu- 
ted the  body  may  have  changed  while  the  body  lived;  but 
the  question  now,  is  not  in  reference  to  the  body  under  such 
circumstances,  but  in  reference  to  the  body  when  deserted 
by  the  spirit. 

But  the  Professor  presents  still  another  illustration  of  this 
imagined  difficulty.  His  words  are  as  follows  : — "  Let  us 
now  turn  for  a  moment  from  the  vegetable  to  the  animal 
kingdom,  and  note  the  organisms  in  that  world  of  wonders. 
The  result  we  shall  find  to  be  the  same.  We  see  the  gro- 
velling and  unsightly  caterpillar  or  silkworm  cast  off  its 
gross  exuviae,  and  forth  issues,  after  certain  ordained  trans- 
formations, the  brisk  and  beautiful  winged  insect,  soaring 
upwards  in  an  element  entirely  new,  and  with  a  body  cu- 
riously adapted  to  the  sphere  into  which  its  existence  is 
transferred.  Though  it  has  not  the  same  body,  yet  we  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying  it  is  the  same  creature  which  we 
beheld  creeping  in  peristaltic  movement  along  the  ground. 
And  we  say  it  is  the  same,  because  we  perceive  here  also 
the  unbroken  continuity  of  the  vital  principle,  the  true  seat 


ASSERTED    AND    DEPENDED.  85 

and  subject  of  animal  identity.  We  have  no  difficulty  in 
recognizing  the  relation  between  the  primitive  and  the  ulti- 
mate organism.  The  one  is  visibly  developed  out  of  the 
other  without  one  moment's  cessation  of  the  functions  of  life. 
But  let  us  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the  caterpillar  should 
die  and  moulder  to  dust  before  this  transformation,  according 
to  the  laws  of  nature,  had  taken  place ;  should  we  look  for 
the  emergence,  at  any  future  time,  of  the  butterfly  from  the 
relics  of  the  grub  ?  Or,  if  we  allow  ourselves  to  imagine 
that  one  hundred  or  five  hundred  years  after  the  worm  had 
passed  away,  an  insect  should  appear  flapping  its  gilded 
wings  over  the  very  spot  where  the  preceding  structure  was 
decomposed,  and  we  should  be  told  that  that  butterfly  was 
the  same  being,  transformed,  with  the  caterpillar  that  had 
perished  there  ages  before,  could  we  by  any  possibility  grasp 
the  ideas  involved  in  the  affirmation  ?  All  the  relation  that 
we  could  discern  between  the  one  and  the  other  would  be 
that  o^  priority  and  posteriority  of  time. 

"  Now  this,  we  contend,  is  precisely  the  difficulty  that 
weighs  upon  the  common  theory  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  According  to  this  theory  there  is  just  that  break — 
that  huge  interruption — in  the  continuous  agency  of  the  vital 
principle  which  makes  it  so  impossible  to  discover  or  define 
the  relation  between  the  buried  and  the  beatified  body. 
The  latent  link  which  connects  the  two  entirely  escapes  de- 
tection, and  yet  it  is  upon  the  presence  of  this  link  alone  that 
we  can  predicate  identity  of  the  two  structures." 

I  cheerfully  accord  to  the  objection  as  here  presented  all 
that  it  can  logically  claim.  It  certainly  does  exhibit  most 
clearly  and  forcibly  that  there  is  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
explaining  and  proving  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  on  principles  furnished  by  reason  and  the  light  of 
nature  alone.  And  were  it  not  that  I  regard  the  doctrine  as 
a  revelation  from  heaven,  I  should  be  tempted  to  unite  with 
Professor  Bush,  and  the  Athenians  on  Mar's  Hill,  in  the  time 
of  Paul,  in  rejecting  it  as  absolutely  impossible.  Unassisted 
reason  can  teach  us  but  little  on  the  subject,  though  it  is  true 
that  some  of  the  ancient  philosophers  before  Christ,  believed 
that  the  dead  might  arise.  Yet  when  the  fact  is  once  an- 
nounced by  God,  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  something  like 
analogies  to  illustrate  and  confirm  its  truth.  For  philoso- 
phically speaking,  it  cannot  be  more  difficult  for  God  to  col- 
lect and   reconstruct  the  constituent  particles  of  our  dead 

8 


86  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

bodies,  though  dispersed  into  the  four  quarters  of  earth,  than 
it  is  to  establish  natural  laws,  by  which  our  present  bodies 
receive  their  particles  now  from  every  part  of  the  world ;  as 
remarked  on  a  former  page.  This  analogy,  and  others 
which  may  be  mentioned,  can  be  taken  to  illustrate  the  doc- 
trine after  it  is  announced  in  the  word  of  God  ;  but  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether,  independent  of  revelation,  they  would  ever 
have  led  to  a  supposition  that  the  doctrine  is  true. 

If,  therefore,  the  foregoing  illustration  of  Professor  Bush, 
is  designed  to  show  thaf  the  modus  operandi  of  God  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  is  incomprehensible  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  doctrine  is  true,  we  cheerfully  concede  all  that 
it  demands.  But  if  its  design  is  to  show  that  because  it  is 
incomprehensible,  it  must  therefore  be  untrue;  we  must  in 
that  case  remind  Professor  Bush  that  his  inference  is  false 
and  absurd.  This  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  exception ; 
but  there  are  two  or  three  points  referred  to  therein,  by  the 
Professor,  which  call  for  a  remark  or  two  before  dismissing 
it  entirely. 

The  illustration  egregiously  fails  in  several  of  its  most 
important  features.  1.  Professor  Bush  asserts  that  the  but- 
terfly "  has  not  the  same  body"  which  it  possessed  when  a 
crawling  caterpillar.  But  in  what  respect  is  it  not  the  same? 
Are  not  the  particles  which  compose  the  body  of  the  butter- 
fly clearly  those  which  constituted  the  body  of  the  caterpil- 
lar? Truly,  they  are  the  very  same;  only  they  are  fewer 
in  number  and  differently  arranged,  or  have  taken  another 
form.  So  far,  therefore,  as  this  illustration  applies,  it  esta- 
blishes the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body  that 
died  :  for  we  have  conceded  that  the  arrangement  of  the  par- 
ticles of  the  resurrection  body,  will  be  different  from  that  of 
the  body  which  died.  But  who  before  has  ever  imagined 
that  a  variation  in  the  arrangement  of  particles  is  destruc- 
tive of  their  identity?  Are  not  the  particles  of  gold  in  the 
bullion  the  same  as  they  were  when  it  existed  in  the  form  of 
ore?  2.  The  reason  here  given  by  Professor  Bush,  and 
upon  which  he  avers  that  we  predicate  the  declaration  that 
the  butterfly  is  the  same  creature  as  the  caterpillar,  is  not 
the  true  reason.  We  do  not  say  that  the  creature  is  the 
same,  merely  "  because  we  perceive  here  also  the  unbroken 
continuity  of  the  vital  principle;^^  but  because  we  see  that 
the  body  itself  is  the  same,  though  its  configuration  has 
changed.     Is  a  change  of  configuration  destructive  of  iden- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  87 

tityl  Was  our  Saviour's  body  when  transfigured  not  the 
same  in  its  constituent  particles  that  it  was  before?  And 
then, — 3.  Let  us,  with  Professor  Bush,  "  suppose  that  the 
caterpillar  should  die  and  moulder  to  dust  before  its  trans- 
fornnation," — "  and  allow  ourselves  to  imagine  that  one  hun- 
dred or  five  hundred  years  after  the  worm  had  passed  away, 
an  insect  should  appear  flapping  its  gilded  wings  over  the 
very  spot  where  the  preceding  structure  was  decomposed;" 
and  most  assuredly  we  should  never  imagine  a  priori  that 
this  insect  could  be  the  same  that  had  died,  and  was  decom- 
posed. But  suppose  that  God  should  aflrm  to  us  that  it 
was  the  same,  and  that  he  had  revived  it?  I  ask  Professor 
Bush  whether  he  would  refuse  to  believe  God,  merely  be- 
cause he  could  not  perceive  how  the  relation  could  have 
been  preserved?  Most  certainly  he  would  believe  him.  And 
if  so,  where  is  the  point  of  this  illustration?  or  the  propriety 
of  Professor  Bush  arguing  as  he  does?  The  true  question 
is  not  what  we  can  comprehend ;  but  what  God  has  said  in 
reference  to  the  matter. 

The  same  fallacy  is  discoverable  likewise  in  the  following 
exception,  which  is  in  fact  a  part  of  the  foregoing :  "  Sup- 
posing that  Omnipotence  should  adjust  this  difficulty,  will 
the  re-construction  of  the  original  materials  of  the  fleshly 
body  form  the  spiritual  body  which  we  conceive  to  be  that 
of  the  resurrection  ?  And  if  a  change  take  place  virtually 
equivalent  to  a  new  creation,  how  can  this  be  termed  the 
resurrection  of  the  same  body?  On  any  ground,  therefore, 
we  perceive  the  immense  difficulty  of  establishing  a  definite 
or  conceivable  relation  between  the  body  that  dies  and  the 
body  that  is  raised."  p.  52. 

I  reply,  1.  That  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses  is  a 
"spiritual  body."  Professor  Bush  must  admit  that  the  ter- 
tium  quid  of  which  he  speaks  must  be  material;  though  it 
may  be  matter  (if  such  a  thing  could  possibly  exist  as  he 
supposes,)  highly  refined.  Where,  then,  is  the  difficulty  of 
supposing  that  the  materials  which  compose  the  body  that 
dies,  may  be  also  thus  refined,  and  adapted  to  the  uses  of 
the  spirit?  But  2.  "If  a  change  take  place  virtually 
equivalent  to  a  new  creation,  how  can  this  be  termed  the 
resurrection  of  the  same  body?"  There  is,  however,  an 
equivocation  here,  in  the  phrase  "  equivalent  to  a  new 
creation."  I  would  ask  Professor  Bush  what  he  means  by 
it?     "Virtually  equivalent  to  a  new  creation"  of  the  par' 


88  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

tides  which  composed  the  body  that  died  ?     Is  then  a  new 

arrangement  of  particles  "  virtually  equivalent  to  a  new 
creation"  of  those  particles?  Whenever  Professor  Bush 
casts  the  sand  from  the  sand-box  over  his  paper,  he  newly 
arranges  the  particles  of  sand.  Is  this,  then,  "  virtually 
equivalent  to  a  new  creation"  of  those  particles  of  sand  ? 
But  perhaps  he  merely  means  "  equivalent  to  a  new  crea- 
tion" of  the  body  itself.  A  new  creation  of  the  body,  how- 
ever, out  of  the  particles  or  relics  of  the  former  body,  is 
itself  only  a  new  arrangement  of  the  material  composing 
that  body,  and  such  is  the  change  for  which  we  contend. 
But  on  what  principle  is  it  that  a  new  arrangement  of  the 
particles  of  one  body  into  another  body  of  like  configu- 
ration, (only  far  more  glorious,)  is  destructive  of  the  iden- 
tity for  which  we  plead  ?  Professor  Bush  does  not  tell  us. 
If  the  constituent  particles  of  Professor  Bush's  body  to-day 
were  newly  arranged,  by  his  body  being  transformed  into  a 
perfect  resemblance  to  the  glorious  body  of  Elijah  on  Tabor, 
would  it  be  philosophical  or  reasonable  to  question  the  iden- 
tity of  the  body  merely  because  of  this  change?  If  such  a 
change  is  destructive  of  its  identity,  then  I  say  that  we  do 
not  plead  for  any  such  identity  as  can  be  thus  destroyed. 
The  identity  which  the  doctrine  we  contend  for  demands,  is 
simply  this :  that  the  constituent  particles  of  the  resurrection 
body  be  substantially  the  same  with  those  of  the  body  that 
died.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  such  a  change  as  that 
referred  to  above,  is  not  destructive  of  corporeal  identity, 
then  the  objection  of  Professor  Bush  is,  confessedly,  vain 
and  nugatory. 

The  foregoing  objections  are  followed  by  a  repetition  of 
the  objection  noticed  above,  and  relating  to  the  "  escape  and 
replacement  of  the  particles"  of  our  bodies  in  this  world. 
This  objection  the  Professor  is  so  pleased  with  that  he  re- 
peats it  some  three  or  four  times  more.  See  pp.  55,  56,  and 
68-70,  &c.  He,  also,  presents  again  his  ^^  grand  objec- 
tion,^^ "  founded  upon  the  lack  of  a  conceivable  relation,^^ 
(see  pp.  56,  57,)  which  "  grand  objection"  we  have  already 
had  up  several  times,  and  think  it  hardly  necessary  to  refute 
it  again.  Such  repetition,  and  re-repetition  of  these  old  ob- 
jections, certainly  evinces  that  the  Professor  had  not  at  hand 
a  very  copious  store.  Yet  as  the  following  professes  to  be 
his  reply  to  an  argument,  it  may  be  proper  to  refer  to  it 
before   leaving   the   subject.     After  expressing  his   doubts 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  89 

whether  God  himself  can  establish  the  relation  referred  to, 
he  remarks : 

"  We  are  aware  it  is  easily  replied,  that  it  is  no  more 
difficult  to  conceive  of  the  future  body  being  built  up  out  of 
the  dispersed  particles  of  the  old  one,  than  it  is  to  conceive 
of  the  creation  of  the  body  in  the  first  instance.  But  this 
reply  loses  sight  of  one  important  consideration  which 
destroys  the  parallelism  of  the  two  cases.  In  the  original 
creation  there  is  the  production  of  something  by  the  simple 
fiat  of  Omnipotence  that  has  no  relation  to  any  thing  going 
before.  But  in  the  case  of  the  resurrection  there  is  the 
production  of  something  out  of  a  pre-existing  substance, 
and,  consequently,  involving  a  relation  of  the  former  and 
the  latter  fabric  to  each  other,  which  is  of  such  a  nature  as 
utterly  to  confound  and  overwhelm  our  faculties,  even  when 
Omnipotence  is  called  in  to  solve  the  problem.  We  may 
illustrate  the  difficulty  that  cleaves  to  the  hypothesis  by  a 
fresh  supposition." 

And  this  "  fresh  supposition"  is  simply  this :  *'  A  human 
body,  the  body  of  a  horse,  and  the  wheel  of  a  war-chariot 
may  have  been  buried  together"  beneath  the  surface  of  a 
field  of  battle.  These  substances  finally  "  become  com- 
mingled in  one  indiscriminate  mass  of  dust."  And  no  one 
can  conceive  of  any  essential  difference  in  the  material  thus 
reduced  to  dust,  or  of  one  part  being  better  adapted  than 
another  for  the  construction  of  a  glorified  body.  p.  57. 

But  this  objection  is  likewise  based  upon  the  incon- 
ceivableness  of  the  thing,  and,  therefore,  merits  no  further 
notice  here.  We  know  that  if  God  has  announced  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  he  is  well  able  to  take 
care  of  our  dust,  and  adapt  it  to  the  return  of  our  spirit. 
Yet  the  former  part  of  this  paragraph  calls  for  a  remark. 
Professor  Bush  there  says,  that  when  we  affirm  it  to  be  no 
more  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  re-construction  of  the  resur- 
rection body  out  of  the  dispersed  particles  of  the  old  one, 
than  it  is  to  conceive  of  the  creation  of  the  body  in  the  first 
instance,  we  "  lose  sight  of  one  important  consideration, 
which  destroys  the  parallelism  in  the  two  cases."  What, 
then,  is  this  "  important  consideration"  which  is  eflfectually 
to  neutralize  the  force  of  this  replication  of  ours?  Why  it 
is  this :  that  in  the  first  creation  something  is  produced 
which  has  "  no  relation  to  any  thing  going  before;^^  but  in 
the  case  supposed  there  is  a  thing  produced  with  such  a 

8* 


90  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

relation !  Let  the  reader  refer  to  the  verbiage  of  Professor 
Bush  on  this  subject,  as  quoted  above,  and  see  if  he  can  ap- 
prehend the  cogency  of  this  ''  important  consideration,^^ 
Is  it  then  more  difficult  for  God  to  reproduce  a  body  that 
once  existed  and  has  become  dissolved,  than  to  create  a 
body  entirely  new  ?  Or  is  it  only  more  difficult  for  us  to 
conceive  of  his  doing  the  latter  than  the  former?  If  Pro- 
fessor Bush  means  the  latter  I  cheerfully  concede  that  it 
may  be  more  difficult  to  conceive  of  such  a  thing,  (though 
in  verity  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  is  equally  great  in  both 
cases,)  and  yet  what  does  it  prove  1  That  God  cannot  do  it 
because  we  cannot  tell  hoiv  he  will  do  it?  Such  an  objec- 
tion is  puerile.  But  perhaps  the  Professor  does  not  mean 
this ;  but  that  it  is  really  more  difficult  for  God  to  reproduce 
such  a  body  than  to  create  a  new  one.  If  such  be  his 
meaning,  however,  it  would  have  been  well  if  he  had  backed 
the  assertion  with  some  little  proof:  for  it  is  quite  as  difficult 
for  me  to  conceive  how  Professor  Bush  attained  to  this  extra- 
ordinary degree  of  knowledge,  as  it  is  to  conceive  how  the 
dead  are  to  be  raised.  Until  the  proof  is  furnished,  there- 
fore, I  meet  the  assertion  with  a  plain  denial  of  its  truth. 
And  with  the  counter  declaration,  that  the  one  is  no  more 
difficult  for  God  to  accomplish  than  the  other. 

Objection  VII.  The  next  objection  of  Professor  Bush  is 
of  the  cui  bono  kind.  It  is  presented  in  the  form  of  an  illus- 
tration and  its  application.  "  Look  at  that  gorgeous  varie- 
gated tenant  of  the  air,"  (says  he,  pp.  79,  80,)  "  winging  its 
easy  and  joyous  way  over  the  flowery  garden,  or  the  grassy 
mead,  or  along  the  course  of  the  babbling  brook.  It  has  left 
its  pristine  grovelling  body  in  the  dust,  into  which  it  is  moul- 
dering away.  It  can  even  look  down  from  its  serial  flight, 
and  see  the  unsightly  tenement  which  it  has  forsaken  re- 
solving itself  into  its  original  elements.  Does  it  need  it  any 
more?  Of  what  conceivable  use  can  that  earthly  casement 
be  to  it  now  that  it  has  received  another  body,  developed  out 
of  the  old  one,  adapted  to  the  sphere  in  which  it  moves? 
Could  any  thing  be  gained  by  attaching  the  burdensome  in- 
cumbrance of  the  former  structure  to  the  splendid  apparatus 
of  the  latter?  Is  not  the  original  fabric  turned  to  much  better 
account  by  being  resolved  back  into  dust,  and  so  going  to 
form  the  material  of  other  worms,  which  shall  in  their  turn 
give  rise  to  other  butterflies  ?  So  may  we  justly  propose 
the  question  of  the  cui  bono  in  relation  to  the  resurrection  of 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  91 

our  former  bodies.  What  purpose  can  they  be  supposed  to 
answer^  provided  we  have,  as  all  reasoning  and  analogy- 
tends  to  establish,  spiritual  bodies  that  have  emanated  from 
the  material — bodies  wisely  adapted  to  a  spiritual  world  1 
What  desirable  accession  will  they  bring  to  the  conditions 
of  that  being  upon  which  we  enter  when  mortality  is  swal- 
lowed up  of  life?  The  elements  of  our  corporeal  frames 
may  eventually  find  their  way  into  the  construction  of  bodies 
that  shall  enshrine  some  of  the  brightest,  purest,  noblest 
spirits  that  ever  adorned  the  creation  of  God.  Will  they 
not  thus  be  better  employed  than  in  being  brought  into  con- 
junction with  spiritual  bodies  that  are  as  perfect  without 
them  as  the  butterfly  is  without  its  caterpillar  fabric?" 

With  respect  to  the  butterfly,  its  "earthly  casement"  can, 
in  its  present  state,  be  of  no  use  to  it  that  we  can  imagine ; 
and  yet  if  the  word  of  God  expressly  affirmed  that  in  some 
way  unknown  to  us  it  would  again  put  on  its  cast  offexuvitB, 
would  Professor  Bush  refuse  to  believe  it,  simply  because  he 
could  not  conceive  the  use  of  such  a  procedure?  I  trow 
not.  Does  his  illustration,  then,  present  the  true  issue  of  the 
question  under  discussion?  But  the  butterfly  really  does 
not  reassume  its  cast  off*  caterpillar  form.  And  what  then? 
Are  we  to  infer  from  this  that  therefore  the  body  of  man  is 
not  to  be  reunited  with  his  spirit?  If  so,  where  is  the  con- 
nexion between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion?  Professor 
Bush  would  certainly  confer  a  favour  if  he  would  point  it 
out. 

As  to  the  cui  bono  of  such  a  reunion  between  the  body 
and  spirit,  I  am  not  aware  that  our  inability  to  exhibit  it,  is 
any  proof  that  it  does  not  exist.  Kant,  somewhere  in  his 
Religionslehre,  presents  the  same  objection  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body.  "  Reason,"  says  he,  *'  can  see  no  advan- 
tage in  the  supposition,  that  a  body,  which,  however  much 
it  may  have  been  purified,  is  still  to  be  found  substantially 
of  the  same  materials  ;  a  body  to  which  we  have  never  been 
rightly  attached  in  this  life,  should  be  dragged  after  us 
through  all  eternity.  Nor  can  reason  comprehend  what 
would  be  the  use  of  this  body,  (which  consists  of  earth,)  in 
heaven,  i.  e.,  in  another  part  of  the  universe,  in  M'hich,  pro- 
bably, other  substances  than  matter  are  necessary  to  the 
existence  and  preservation  of  living  beings."  In  reply  to 
which  objection,  Storr  forcibly  remarks  that  "  no  reason  can 
be  assigned  why  we  should  have  a  decided  aversion  to   a 


92  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

future  union  with  our  bodies  ;  for  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
body  affords  the  spirit  very  great  advantages ;  and  we  have 
no  reason  to  expect  that  the  sufferings  which  result  from  the 
structure  of  our  present  body  will  be  concomitant  on  the 
future  renovated  body.  Nor  can  it  be  maintained,  as  Kant 
has  asserted,  that  the  most  minute  particles  of  our  bodies, 
the  ultimate  elementary  principles  of  which  it  consists, 
which  no  chemical  science  has  ever  been  able  to  reach,  are 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  disqualify  it  for  existence  in  our  future 
residence,  the  nature  of  which  is  totally  unknown  to  us."* 

But  on  pp.  81 — 83,  Professor  Bush  does  not  seem  fully 
satisfied  to  refer  the  subject  entirely  to  the  decision  of  the 
Bible.  He  says,  "  If  the  letter  of  revelation  holds  forth  a 
view  of  the  doctrine  which  arrays  itself  against  the  clearest 
evidence  of  facts  and  the  soundest  process  of  reasoning,  is 
there  no  demand,  on  the  other  side,  for  the  reconciliation  of 
Scripture  with  science?  Are  we  required  to  hoodwink  our 
faculties  in  order  to  do  honour  to  inspiration?  Now,  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted 
that  it  cannot  but  feel  the  force  of  the  objections  which  we 
have  urged  against  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body,  or  in- 
deed of  any  body  at  all,  except  the  spiritual  body,  which,  we 
are  compelled  to  believe,  is  eliminated  at  death,  by  esta- 
blished laws,  from  the  clay  tabernacles  that  we  here  inhabit. 
But  if  faith  is  supposed  to  be  required  to  reject  what  reason 
sanctions,  is  not  this  in  effect  to  say  that  we  are  called  to  do 
homage  to  God's  word  at  the  expense  of  doing  violence  to 
his  work? — for  the  human  reason  is  the  noblest  product  of 

*  In  his  Dissertatio  de  Vita  Beata,  (Opusc.  Acad.  Vol.  II.,  p.  84, 
etc.,)  Storr  beautifully  explains  2  Corinthians  v.  2,  4.  And  as  it  bears 
upon  the  point  above  referred  to,  we  shall  quote  his  remarks.  "  As  it 
is  the  natural  desire  of  our  spirits,  to  inhabit  a  body ;  our  groanings 
under  the  sufferings  to  which  we  are  exposed  in  our  present  frail  body, 
extort  from  us  the  wish,  not  only  to  be  delivered  from  the  present  suf- 
ferings of  that  body,  but  to  receive  a  body  of  a  different  structure,  to 
receive  a  heavenly  body,  (v.  1,)  instead  of  the  earthly  one;  and  espe- 
cially  to  receive  it  in  such  a  manner,  hS^t/a-sio-Qsii,  v.  3,  that  we  might 
never  be  without  a  body;  that  we  might  receive  it  without  laying  off 
our  earthly  body  (invS^ua-ctaSAt  v.  2,  4,)  without  dying,  (that  mortality 
might  be  swallowed  up  of  life.)  In  such  a  change  we  should  never 
be  divested  of  body  ;  and  thus  the  desire  of  our  nature  would  be  fully 
gratified."  (See  Biblic.  Theol.  pp.  371—2.)  Such  is  the  desire  of  the 
pious  soul ;  and  hence  the  assurance,  that  though  separated  from  the 
body  at  deuth,  it  shall  resume  possession  of  it  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  just. 


or  THE 
ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.    \V  9B 

S^  ■   :  '\  -•, 

Omnipotence." — "The  great  question  on  the'^stiiect  is, 
What  is  the  fact  which  is  asserted,  and  which  we  are  re- 
quired to  believe?  What  is  the  very  thin^  which  Omnipo- 
tence is  to  do  in  order  to  do  what  is  usually  deemed  neces- 
sary to  the  resurrection  of  the  body?  If  we  have  not  mis- 
conceived the  prevalent  sentiment  of  the  Christian  world,  it 
is,  that  the  same  body  which  lived,  and  died,  and  was  buried, 
is  again  to  be  raised.  Let  it  be  granted  that  this  is  the  as- 
serted fact  of  Scripture :  we  array  against  it  the  counter 
fact,  that,  as  the  raised  body  is  to  be  a  spiritual  body,  it  can* 
not  be  the  same.  Here  are  two  asserted  facts  in  direct  con- 
trariety to  each  other.  Can  the  one  be  intelligently  held 
without  some  attempted  explanation  of  the  mode  in  which  it 
is  to  be  made  consistent  with  the  other?  Is  it  an  impeach- 
ment of  due  religious  reverence  to  inquire  if  there  be  any 
possibility  of  bringing  our  faith  and  our  philosophy  into  ac- 
cordance on  this  head?" 

But,  1.  As  to  the  question  of  "  hoodwinking  our  faculties 
in  order  to  do  honour  to  revelation,"  we  have  already  re- 
marked, that  nothing  of  this  kind  is  necessary  in  order  to 
receive  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  as  true. 
And  Professor  Bush  does  neither  his  cause  nor  himself  any 
credit  by  thus  perpetually  throwing  out  the  contrary  intima- 
tion. This  point,  however,  intimately  concerns  Professor 
Bush's  principles  of  interpretation — a  subject  which  will  be 
fully  considered  hereafter. 

2.  The  hypothetical  principle  stated  by  Professor  Bush, 
in  these  remarks,  may  be  recognized  as  correct,  without  a 
concession  of  any  thing  which  he  demands  for  it.  He  asks, 
"  If  the  letter  of  revelation  holds  forth  a  view  of  the  doctrine 
which  arrays  itself  against  the  clearest  evidence  of  facts, 
and  the  soundest  process  of  reasoning,  is  there  no  demand 
on  the  other  side  for  the  reconciliation  of  Scripture  with 
science?"  I  answer  that  in  such  a  case  there  might  exist 
such  a  demand.  But  Professor  Bush  has  exhibited  none  of 
this  "  clearest  evidence  of  facts,"  or  this  "  soundest  process 
of  reasoning,"  in  support  of  his  theory,  and  hence  there  can 
be  no  demand  of  this  kind  in  his  case.  His  '•'■  facts'^  exhibit 
any  thing  but  "  the  clearest  evidence"  in  their  favour ;  and 
his  "  process  of  reasoning,"  as  we  have  shown,  is  any  thing 
but  sound.  The  evidence  in  verification  of  this  statement  has 
been  spread  before  the  reader  in  the  preceding  pages. 

3.  I  freely  admit  that  "  the  only  ground  on  which  we 


94  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

can  recognize  the  claims  to  preference  of  one  mode  of 
solving  a  difficulty  of  revelatioii  above  another,  is,  that  it 
goes  further  towards  satisfying  the  demands  of  our  intelli- 
gence, all  things  considered,  than  the  other."  And  it  is  on 
this  principle  precisely  that  I  wholly  reject  the  proposed 
theory  of  Professor  Bush.  And  it  is  not  overrating  the 
matter  to  aver,  that  for  every  serious  difficulty  which  en- 
cumbers the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the 
theory  of  Professor  Bush  is  encumbered  with  a  hundred. 
Evidence  of  this  will  be  more  fully  presented  when  we  take 
up  the  Scripture  argument. 

4.  In  connexion  with  the  foregoing  objection  the  Pro- 
fessor likewise  enters  a  caveat  against  "  referring"  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  *'  simply  to 
the  Divine  Omnipotence."  But  does  he  mean  by  this  that 
we  are  to  take  for  granted,  that  "  the  Divine  Omnipotence" 
can  accomplish  nothing  but  what  we  can  understand,  and 
the  modvs  of  which  we  can  explain?  If  this  be  his  mean- 
ing, surely  it  calls  for  no  reply  from  me.  But  if  it  be  not 
his  meaning,  what  is  the  import  of  his  exceptions  to  the 
principle  referred  to?  For  if  Omnipotence  can  accomplish 
any  thing,  the  modus  of  which  we  are  unable  either  to  ex- 
plain or  understand,  what  hinders  but  that  he  should  be  able 
also  to  accomplish  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  if  even  we 
cannot  comprehend  or  conceive  how  he  does  it?  But  let  us 
examine,  seriatim^  the  principles  upon  which  this  singular 
caveat  is  founded. 

(1.)  *'  We  may  be  permitted  to  suggest,"  says  he,  "  that 
a  reflecting  reason  finds  it  impossible. to  contemplate  intelli- 
gently the  fact,  simply  as  a  fact,  without  reference  to  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  effected."  But  what  does  he  mean 
by  "  contemplating"  here?  Does  he  mean  "  medilating  on," 
or  "considering  with  continued  attention?"  This  is  the 
meaning  of  contemplating  ?  Now  Professor  Bush,  in  his 
work,  (pp.  75,  76,)  speaks  with  a  high  degree  of  eulogy  of 
mesmerism,  and  he  has  frequently  contemplated  the  fact  of 
*'  clairvoyance  ;"  and  doubtless  supposes  that  he  has  contem- 
plated this  fact  "intelligently."  But  has  he  (if  there  be  such 
a  thing,)  any  adequate  conception  of  "  the  mode  in  which  it  is 
effected  ?"  I  fearlessly  answer.  No  !  He  frequently  speaks 
of  the  union  of  matter  with  spirit,  and  mce  versa.  Has  he 
any  idea  of  the  mode  1  Has  he  any  adequate  conception  of 
the  mode  in  which  food  becomes  a  part  of  the  human  sys- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  95 

tern?  And  does  he  find  it  impossible  to  contemplate,  or 
meditate,  on  these  things  as  facts  because  he  cannot  con- 
ceive how  they  are  effected  1  Why  then  will  he,  in  im- 
pugning the  doctrine  of  the  resuiTection  of  the  body,  apply 
a  principle  as  sound,  which,  if  applied  to  these  things,  he 
would  reject  as  unsound?  This  is  but  a  poor  juslificalion 
of  the  caveat  referred  to. 

(2.)  But,  again,  he  asks :  "  What  is  the  fact  which  is 
asserted,  and  which  we  are  required  to  believe?  What  is 
the  very  thing  which  Omnipotence  is  to  do  in  order  to  do 
what  is  usually  deemed  necessary  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
body?"  Ans.  The  fact  to  be  believed,  is  that  the  body 
which  died  is  to  be  raised.  And  this  Omnipotence  will  ac- 
complish by  reconstructing  the  body,  and  changing  it  into 
a  body  adapted  to  the  uses  of  the  immortal  spirit.  There 
is  no  difficulty  in  believing  this  on  the  assurance  of  the 
Almighty. 

(3.)  Professor  Bush  proceeds :  "  Let  it  be  grarited  that 
this  is  the  asserted  fact  of  Scripture :  we  array  against  it 
the  counter  fact,  that,  as  the  raised  body  is  to  be  a  spiritual 
body,  it  cannot  be  the  same.  Here  are  two  asserted  facts 
in  direct  contrariety  to  each  other."  But  the  Professor  here 
takes  for  granted,  that  by  a  spiritual  body  is  meant  pure 
spirit:  and  this  is,  as  we  have  shown,  utterly  destructive  of 
his  tertium  quid  hypothesis,  as  he  would  have  then  a 
pure  spirit  united  to  a  pure  spirit;  an  idea  which  he  ex- 
pressly and  in  so  many  words  rejects  on  p.  83.  But  if  a 
spiritual  body  is  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses,  (which  is 
beyond  doubt  the  import  of  the  phrase,  as  we  shall  show 
hereafter,)  then  why  or  wherefore  can  it  not  be  the  same 
substantially  as  the  body  which  died?  There  is,  therefore, 
no  contradiction  here,  and  no  "  asserted  fact  of  Scripture 
arrayed  against  a  counter  fact." 

(4.)  The  Professor  asks  further :  "  Can  the  one  (fact)  be 
intelligently  held  without  some  attempted  explanation  of  the 
mode  in  which  it  is  to  be  made  consistent  with  the  other?" 
To  this  I  reply,  ^rsf,  that  Professor  Bush  here  varies  his 
position.  For  "  the  mode  in  which  one  fact  is  to  be  made 
consistent  with  another  fact,"  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
"  the  mode  in  which  a  fact  is  to  be  effected,^^  or  performed. 
A  principle  involving  the  former  procedure,  may,  in  the 
case  supposed,  be  sound ;  while  one  involving  the  latter 
cannot  be  sound  in  the  case  supposed,  as  we  have  shown 


96  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

above.  And,  secondly,  an  attempt  to  harmonize  apparently- 
discordant  statements  in  the  word  of  God,  (and  this  is  what 
Professor  Bush  refers  to  in  the  sentence  last  quoted,)  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  the  attempt  which  the  Professor 
has  made  in  his  "Anastasis;"  in  which,  having  assumed 
that  his  deductions  from  reason  are  legitimate,  he  has  at- 
tempted to  show  from  this  assumption  that  the  plain  and 
obvious  teaching  of  the  Bible  must  be  wrong  on  the  subject 
under  discussion ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  ought  to  be  so 
explained  as  to  harmonize  with  his  view  of  what  reason 
teaches. 

These  are  the  fallacious  principles  upon  which  he  has  re- 
fused to  recognize  our  right  to  refer  to  "  Divine  Omnipo- 
tence," as  being  able  to  accomplish  the  resurrection  of  the 
body! 

Such  are  Professor  Bush's  objections  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body.  And  his  assertion  on  p.  81, 
that  the  intelligent  reception  of  this  doctrine  is  attended 
"  with  greater  difficulties,"  than  the  reception  of  the  theory 
propounded  by  himself,  will  not  be  considered  as.  of  any 
great  weight,  if  the  foregoing  are  the  difficulties  referred  to. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  TRUE  OFFICE  OF  REASON  IN  RESPECT  TO  REVEALED  RELIGION. 

The  appropriate  position  of  reason  in  religion,  is  a  subject 
of  high  importance  in  this,  and  in  all  discussions  where  the 
principles  of  reason  and  those  of  true  religion  are  supposed 
to  be  brought  into  conflict.  The  mere  vague  and  undefined 
announcement  that  "  reason  and  religion  must  be  consistent 
with  each  other,"  and  similar  announcements  of  which  Pro- 
fessor Bush's  work  is  literally  full,  can  settle  nothing ;  and 
serve  no  purpose  other  than  to  perplex  the  honest  and  con- 
scientious inquirer  after  truth.  The  statement  made  by 
Professor  Bush  and  others  who  have  written  as  vaguely  on 
the  subject,  neither  makes  nor  allows  any  distinction  between 
the  principles  of  reason,  (so  called,)  which  any  man  in  par- 
ticular may  adopt,  and  the  principles  of  right  reason,  such 
as  God  both  recognizes  and  appeals  to  in  his  word.  And 
hence  every  man  is  left  to  infer  that  the  deductions  of  his 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  '97 

own  philosophy,  (however  distorted  by  his  education  or  his 
prejudices*)  are  legitimate,  and  that  the  announcements  of 
revelation  ought  to  be  so  explained  as  to  harmonize  with 
them. 

It  makes,  therefore,  nothing  for  Professor  Bush  to  insist, 
as  he  so  constantly  does,  upon  the  declaration  that  the  truths 
of  reason  or  philosophy  cannot  conflict  with  revelation :  for 
the  declaration  rightly  vnderstood  and  explained,  affirms 
nothing  but  what  the  church  of  God  has  advocated  for  cen- 
turies ;t  and  at  this  day,  also,  I  am  confident  that  Professor 
Bush  can  point  out  no  intelligent  man  in  the  Protestant 
church  who  has  ever  questioned  it.  But  it  is  not  to  be  for- 
gotten that  there  is  the  same  distinction  to  be  observed  be- 
tween Professor  Bush's  view  of  right  reason,  and  right 
reason  itself;  as  between  a  man's  view  of  truth  and  truth 
itself.  It  is  true  that  what  he  offers  on  this  subject  is  pre- 
sented in  connexion  with  his  principles  of  hermeneutics,  and 
it  may  be  thought  that  we  had  better  defer  our  remarks  upon 
the  matter  until  we  come  to  consider  those.  But  we  think 
that  Professor  Bush  has  grievously  perplexed  his  subject  by 

*  The  following  passage  from  Lord  Bacon,  on  this  subject,  cannot 
be  too  carefully  pondered.  '■^Idola  specus  sunt  idola  hominis  individui. 
Habet  enim  unusquisque  (prtEter  aberrationes  naturce  humaneB  in 
genere,)  specum  sive  cavernam  quandam  individuam,  qusB  lumen 
naturiB  frangit  et  corrumpit;  vel  propter  naturam  cujusque  propriam 
et  singularem ;  vel  propter  educationetn  et  conversationem  cum  aliis; 
vel  propter  lectionem  librorum,  et  auctoritates  eorum  quos  quisque 
colit  et  miratur ;  vel  propter  differentias  impressionum,  prout  occur- 
runt  in  animo  preeoccupato  et  proedisposito,  aut  in  animo  aequo  et 
sedato,  vel  ejusmodi;  ut  plane  spiritus  humanus  (prout  disponitur  in 
hominibus  singulis)  sit  res  varia,  et  omnino  perturbata,  et  quasi  for- 
tuita."  And  also,  *'  Falso  enim  asseritur,  sensum  humanum  esse 
mensuram  rerum ;  quin  contra,  omnes  perceptiones,  tam  sensus  quam 
mentis,  sunt  ex  analogia  hominis,  non  ex  analogia  universi.  Estque  in- 
tellectus  humanus  instar  speculi  insequalis  ad  radios  rerum,  qui  suam 
naturam  naturce  rerum  immiscet,  eamque  distorquet  et  inficit." 
Novum  Organuirij  Lib.  I.,  §§.  41,  and  42.  Works,  Vol.  II.,  p.  435. 
London  1838. 

+  Nearly  three  centuries  ago,  the  great  Ursinus,  speaking  of  true 
philosophy,  says,  "  Vera  enim  philosophia,  etsi  et  ipsa  a  doctrina  Ec- 
clesiae  multum  difFert,  tamen  nee  pugnat  cum  ca,  nee  est  mendacium 
ut  aliarum  Sectarum   falsse    doctrlnse,  sed  est  Veritas;    et  quidam 

QUASI    RADIUS    SAPIENTI^    DeI,    MENTIBUS    HOMINUM   IN   CREATIONE     IM- 

PRESSUS."     Explic.  Cat.  Heidelberg.  Proleg.  p.  4.     This  fine  passage 
may  serve  to  evince  v^ith  how  little  reason  or  propriety  Professor 
Bush  announces  with  such  parade  of  controversial  attitude,  his  vague 
and  undefined  proposition  above  referred  to. 
9 


98  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODT 

thus  connecting  them ;  and  with  such  a  view  of  the  matter 
we  surely  may  plead  to  be  excused  from  following  his  ex- 
ample. 

In  discussing  the  subject,  it  is  perhaps  the  better  plan  to 
begin  with  a  consideration  of  what  the  Professor  has  oifered 
in  view  of  it,  in  the  attempt  to  sustain  the  position  which  he 
has  assumed.     And  in  doing  so,  I  shall  inquire 

I.  What  is  the  office  assigned  to  reason  by  Professor 
Bush?  We  have  already  remarked  that  his  leading  propo- 
sition (referred  to  above,)  as  announced  by  him,  is  utterly 
vague  and  indefinite;  and,  as  ii  stands  isolated,  is  susceptible 
of  either  of  two  diametrically  opposite  explanations.  We 
must  therefore  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  meaning  which  he 
attaches  to  it,  by  referring  to  those  portions  of  his  work, 
where  he  professes  to  illustrate  its  application. 

In  his  application  of  it  to  his  announcement  of  the  results 
of  scientific  investigation,  he  says:  "We  cannot  conceive 
that  the  homage  due  to  a  revelation  from  God  requires  us  to 
forego  the  inevitable  deductions  of  that  reason  with  which 
he  has  endowed  us,  nor  do  we  think  it  possible  that  that 
word  will  ever  achieve  its  predicted  triumphs  over  the 
human  mind  till  its  teachings,  on  all  points  that  come 
within  the  sphere  of  a  true  philosophy,  shall  be  seen  to  har- 
monize with  its  legitimate  deductions."  p.  29.  What  Pro- 
fessor Bush  here  means  by  "  a  true  philosophy"  will  be 
seen  by  referring  to  his  "  argument  from  reason,''''  and  his 
^^  objections,^''  stated  on  the  preceding  pages:  and  it  will  be 
seen  also  that  the  import  of  this  phrase,  as  employed  by 
him,  differs  toto  ccelo  from  that  in  which  it  is  used  in  the 
last  marginal  note,  and  from  that  in  which  it  is  employed 
by  the  Protestant  church  generally.  The  Professor  per- 
petually confounds  his  own  philosophy  with  true  philosophy; 
and,  of  course,  leaves  the  privilege  of  doing  the  same  to 
every  man  who  is  satisfied  with  the  legitimacy  of  his  own 
deductions. 

But,  again.  Professor  Bush's  **  true  philosophy"  leads 
him,  in  its  application  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  to 
say,  "As  we  apprehend  the  subject  before  us,  the  ideas  in- 
volved in  the  proposition  of  the  resurrection  of  the  same 
body  are  incompatible  per  se.  The  real  question  is,  how 
Omnipotence  itself  can  establish  the  relation  of  which  we 
are  in  quest."  p.  57.  And  forgetting  also  how  easy  it  is  to 
imagine  that  we  have  arrived  at  a  certain  knowledge  of  as- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  99 

serted  facts,  when  in  truth  we  know  nothing  about  them,  his 
philosophy  leads  him  to  say  of  the  word  of  God,  *'  If  in  the 
careful  scanning  of  that  word,  the  letter  speaks  a  language 
contrary  to  clearly  ascertained  facts  in  nature  and  science, 
he  will  take  it  as  type,  figure,  allegory,  metaphor,  symbol, 
accommodation,  anthropomorphism — any  thing  rather  than 
the  declaration  of  absolute  verity,"  (Pre/ace,  p.  xi.,)and,  in- 
stead of  doubting  whether  he  may  not  have  fallen  into  some 
imperceptible  error  in  respect  to  what  he  has  concluded  to  be 
a  "  positive,  fixed,  irrefragable  truth,"  he  must,  if  the  word 
of  God  "clash"  with  such  a  "  clearly  ascertained  truth,"  at 
once  conclude  that  "  the  word  itself  must  he  a  forgery  and  a 
lie.^^  Ibid,  This  is  Professor  Bushes  philosophy.  But  let  the 
great  Verulam  (an  authority  which  Professor  Bush,  on  p.  23, 
has  quoted  and  applauded)  define  for  us  true  philosophy. 
"Divine  philosophy  is  that  knowledge,  or  rudiment  of  know- 
ledge, concerning  God,  which  may  be  obtained  by  the  con- 
templation of  his  creatures  [works] ;  which  knowledge  may 
be  truly  termed  divine,  in  respect  of  the  object,  and  natural 
in  respect  of  the  light.  The  bounds  of  this  knowledge  are, 
that  it  sufficeth  to  convince  atheism,  but  not  to  inform  reli- 
gion :  and,  therefore,  there  was  never  a  miracle  wrought  by 
God  to  convert  an  atheist,  because  the  light  of  nature  might 
have  led  him  to  confess  a  God,  &c.  But  on  the  other  side, 
out  of  the  contemplation  of  nature  or  ground  of  human 
knowledge,  to  induce  any  verity  or  persuasion  concerning 
the  points  of  faith,  is,  tn  my  judgment,  not  safe.  Da  fidei, 
quae  fidei  sunt.  For  the  heathen  themselves  conclude  as 
much  in  that  excellent  and  divine  fable  of  the  golden  chain: 
*That  men  and  gods  were  not  able  to  draw  Jupiter  down 
to  the  earth ;  but  contrariwise,  Jupiter  was  able  to  draw 
them  up  to  heaven.'  So  as  we  ought  not  to  attempt  to 
draw  down  or  submit  the  mysteries  of  God  to  our  reason; 
If^t  contrariwise,  to  raise  and  advance  our  reason  to  the 
divine  truth.''''*  And,  again,  in  the  same  book  he  remarks, 
that  "  the  prerogative  of  God  extendeth  as  well  to  the  rea- 
son as  to  the  will  of  man ;  so  that  as  we  are  to  obey  his 
law,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in  our  will ;  so  we  are  to 
believe  his  word,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in  our  rea- 
son.  For  if  we  believe  only  that  which  is  agreeable  to  our 
sense,  we  give  consent  to  the  matter,  and  not  to  the  author, 

*  Advancement  of  Learning,  Lib.  II.  Works,  VoL  I.  p.  34. 


100  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

which  is  no  more  than  we  would  do  towards  a  suspected  and 
discredited  witness :  but  that  faith  which  was  *  accounted  to 
Abraham  for  righteousness,'  was  of  such  a  point,  as  whereat 
Sarah  laughed,  who  therein  was  an  image  of  natural  rea- 
son."    This  is  true  philosophy. 

Here  is  a  contrast  indeed.  The  one  clearly  and  logically 
elevates  reason  above  revelation,  and  makes  that  a  judge 
which  ought  to  be  a  learner;  the  other  leads  reason  to  listen 
to  the  voice  of  God,  and  induces  it  to  take  the  attitude  of  a 
meek  and  humble  disciple.  The  one  leads  to  the  prepos- 
terous absurdity  of  supposing  that  even  though  God  has 
revealed  himself  to  man  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  our 
reason,  that  yet  after  all  God  may  be  wrong,  and  reason 
be  right ;  the  other  remembers  that  man's  reason  has  been 
bruised  and  weakened  and  defaced,  and  greatly  oblite- 
rated by  the  fall,  and  that  it  has  often  concluded  and  as- 
serted that  to  be  true  which  is  not  true,  and  is,  therefore, 
willing  and  desirous  to  rest  implicitly  in  the  plain  testimony 
of  God.  The  philosophy  advocated  by  Professor  Bush  has 
made  the  Christian  a  Rationalist  and  Infidel;  true  philosophy, 
as  here  described  by  Bacon,  has  made  the  Infidel  and  the 
Rationalist  a  Christian.  The  principles  of  the  former  phi- 
losophy never  have  been  settled,  and,  consequently,  its  con- 
clusions have  been  diametrically  opposite  to  each  other  in 
different  ages ;  nor  can  its  advocates  rest  until  they  have 
explained  away  every  thing  which  is  incomprehensible  in 
the  Bible :  while  "  true  philosophy  and  true  religion  (as 
Dr.  S.  S.  Smith  beautifully  remarks,)  must  ultimately  arrive 
at  the  same  principle."  Professor  Bush's  philosophy  scru- 
ples not  to  question  whether  God  can  perform  an  action,  the 
modus  of  which  we  cannot  comprehend ;  while  true  philo- 
sophy rests  fully  assured  that  God  can  accomplish  every 
thing  which  he  has  said  he  will  perform,  without  troubling 
itself  about  the  modus.  ^, 

11.  Such  then  appears  to  be  logically  the  position  assigned 
to  reason  by  Professor  Bush,  and  upon  which  he  ventures 
to  dogmatize  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  contents  of 
revelation.  True  philosophy,  on  the  other  hand,  assigns  to 
reason  a  very  opposite  position.  It  pleads  for  the  strictest 
scrutiny  into  the  evidences  upon  which  the  claims  of  revela- 
tion are  based ;  it  collates  and  compares  manuscripts,  ver- 
sions, and  readings ;  it  settles  the  true  principles  of  herme- 
neutics ;  but  when  this  is  accomplished,  it  receives  as  true, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  101 

with  childlike  docility,  whatever  communication  those  records 
from  God  may  contain.  And  that  this  is  the  true  position 
of  reason  will  appear  from  the  considerations  which  follow. 

1 .  The  very  design  of  revelation  is  to  teach  what  reason 
itself,  since  the  fall,  could  never  have  known.  To  enter  into 
the  proof  of  this,  would  be  absurd ;  for  all  Christians  admit 
that  a  revelation  from  heaven  was  necessary.  But  it  could 
not  have  been  necessary,  if  reason  could  have  taught  us 
without  it,  what  it  professes  to  teach.  We  shall  illustrate 
the  proposition  however. 

And  first,  passing  by  the  still  unsettled  principles  of  na- 
tural and  mental  science,  and  upon  which  reason  has  been 
supposed  to  teach  in  one  age,  what  it  has  denied  in  another, 
let  us  consider  some  of  its  dicta  in  matters  supposed  by  the 
generality  of  men  to  be  quite  obvious.  Colonel  Ethan 
Allen's  reason  taught  him  the  transmigration  of  souls.  Lord 
Herbert's  philosophy  taught  him  that  the  indulgence  of  lust 
and  anger  is  no  more  to  be  blamed  than  the  thirst  produced 
by  the  dropsy,  or  the  drowsiness  occasioned  by  lethargy. 
Hobbes'  philosophy  taught  that  the  civil  law  is  the  only  stan- 
dard of  right  and  wrong.  Tindal  asserted  that  the  indulgence 
of  lust  is  innocent.  Bolingbroke's  philosophy  resolved  all 
morality  into  self  love  as  its  principle.  He  taught  also  that 
the  shame  of  modesty  is  artificial ;  that  the  chief  end  of  man 
is  to  gratify  the  desires  and  appetites  of  his  flesh ;  that  adul- 
tery is  no  violation  of  the  law  of  nature;  that  this  law 
teaches  polygamy,  and  "  does  not  forbid  incest,  except  it  be, 
perhaps,  of  the  highest  kind."  Hume's  philosophy  taught 
that  self-denial  and  humility  are  not  virtues,  but  are  useless 
and  mischievous,  and  that  adultery  is  proper  and  right. 
Helvetius  also  taught  that  it  was  not  good  policy  to  forbid 
adultery.  Robert  Owen  and  Miss  Wright  taught  that  chas- 
tity is  a  vicious  restraint.  These  are  some  of  the  dicta  of 
reason,  where  she  has  erected  herself  into  a  judge  of  the 
doctrines  of  revelation. 

But  secondly,  the  absolute  weakness  and  inefficiency  of 
reason  in  respect  of  those  subjects  upon  which  revelation 
alone  can  impart  certainty,  are  equally  apparent.  Take  for 
example  the  subject  of  man's  duty  to.  God.  Reason  and 
philosophy  leave  us  on  this  subject  in  the  most  painful  sus- 
pense. Socrates  confessed  that  he  had  no  sufficient  ground 
of  assurance  that  the  doctrines  were  true  which  he  was  in- 

9* 


102       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

clined  to  believe;  or  that  the  worship  which  he  rendered 
was  acceptable  to  the  gods.  It  is  true  we  may  know  some- 
thing of  the  ground  or  obligation  of  duty,  but  this  is  very 
different  from  knowing  what  duty  God  may  require  of  us. 
Every  one  who  has  attempted  from  philosophy  or  reason 
alone  to  define  it,  has  differed  either  with  himself,  or  with 
some  other  equally  gifted  of  the  advocates  of  the  sufficiency 
of  the  light  of  nature.  The  same  degree  of  uncerlainty  pre- 
vails on  the  question  whether  God  will  be  merciful  to  the 
sinner  upon  his  repentance  and  reformation.  Reason,  on 
the  principle  of  justice,  clearly  concludes  against  the  suppo- 
sition. It  can  teach  man  that  he  does  sin,  but  there  it  leaves 
him.  And  even  if  he  may  suppose  that  God  will  show 
mercy  upon  his  repentance,  he  cannot  tell  how  far  this  sup- 
posed mercy  will  extend — whether  to  all  manner  of  sin,  or 
to  some  sins  only.  And  where  is  the  principle  in  philoso- 
phy to  determine  these  questions?  The  same  degree  of  un- 
certainty attaches  itself  to  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  or  spirit  of  man.  Or  allowing  its  immortality,  phi- 
losophy is  utterly  unable  to  tell  what  is  necessary  on  our 
part  in  order  to  secure  its  everlasting  welfare,  and  escape 
the  future  punishment  of  sin.  We  might  continue  these  re- 
marks, but  the  foregoing  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

The  design  of  revelation,  therefore,  is  to  instruct  us  in 
matters  of  the  most  vital  importance  to  us  ;  and  matters,  too, 
which  reason  of  itself  is  utterly  unable  to  discover,  or  to 
know  any  thing. 

I  am  aware  that  Professor  Bush  may  reply  to  all  this, 
that  he  fully  admits  the  necessity  of  a  revelation,  and  will 
yield  to  no  man  in  the  profound  regard  which  he  entertains 
for  the  Scriptures.  And  I  do  not  question  the  sincerity  of 
his  attachment  to  them.  I  believe  his  errors  on  the  subject 
before  us,  are  those  of  the  head  and  not  of  the  heart :  but 
they  nevertheless  are  errors,  glaring  errors,  pernicious  and 
ruinous  errors,  if  followed  out  to  their  logical  results.  He  does 
not  doubt  the  necessity  of  revelation,  nor  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  which  profess  to  be  such :  he  wishes  merely  to 
prove  reason  and  revelation  to  be  consistent.  But  I  have 
no  controversy  with  him  as  to  his  aim,  but  with  his  pro- 
cedure in  his  effort  to  accomplish  it.  In  this  procedure  he 
has  asserted  and  advocated  principles  which  are  subver- 
sive of  revelation  itself,   and  are   the  very  foundation  of 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  103 

rationalism  and  scepticism.  And  we  should  be  recreant  to 
the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  if  any  tenderness  to  an 
accomplished  and  amiable  man  should  influence  us  to  treat 
with  favour  the  pernicious  principles  which  he  advocates. 

The  plea  of  wishing  to  gain  over  well-informed  and  scep- 
tical men  to  Christianity,  by  showing  them  that  reason  and 
religion  are  harmonious ;  is  one  which  has  often  been  made 
in  order  to  justify  the  extremes  of  Socinian  and  kindred 
errors.  Priestley  also,  thus  endeavoured  to  gain  over  the 
Jews,  but  they  repelled  the  attempt  with  the  utmost  scorn. 
The  same  result  has  attended  the  eflibrts  of  Unitarians  and 
Rationalists  universally.  They  have  not  hesitated  to  become 
infidels  in  order  to  gain  infidels.  But  this  whole  procedure 
is  based  upon  either  the  forgetfulness  of,  or  refusal  to  ac- 
knowledge the  Scripture  truth  that  unbelief  is  lodged  not  so 
much  in  the  head  as  in  the  heart.  "  Men  love  darkness 
rather  than  light."  And  there  is  no  mere  rational  explana- 
tion that  can  in  any  wise  render  "  the  offence  of  the  cross" 
less  than  it  is,  and  ever  has  been. 

Now  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  if  reason  is  incompetent  to 
the  ascertainment  of  the  truths  of  revelation,  she  must  also 
be  incompetent  to  decide  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  true 
philosophy.  For  their  reconcileableness  therewith  may  still 
depend  upon  principles  as  utterly  unknown  to  reason,  as 
were  these  truths  themselves  before  they  were  revealed. 
Common  sense  may  teach  us  this. 

2.  Hence  the  very  idea  of  such  a  revelation  clearly  infers 
that  there  is  no  necessity  that  every  doctrine  which  it  an- 
nounces should  be  taught  also  by  reason. 

I  am  aware  how  this  proposition  will  be  regarded  by  such 
writers  as  Professor  Bush,  and  reference  will  be  immediately 
made  to  the  immortal  work  of  Bishop  Butler.  The  Bishop's 
Analogy  is  often  thus  referred  to  vaguely,  as  if  he  had 
attempted  to  prove  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  by  reason. 
But  he  has  attempted  to  prove  no  such  thing ;  and  if  Pro- 
fessor Bush  in  the  Anastasis,  had  followed  in  his  steps, 
he  would  have  found  few  opponents  among  Christians. 
The  aim  of  Butler's  great  work  is  to  show  that  true  philoso- 
phy sanctions  no  principles  which  can  really  conflict  with 
revelation ;  and  this  he  does  agreably  to  the  suggestion  of 
Lord  Bacon  above  referred  to.  He  does  not  attempt  to  draw 
down  or  submit  the  mysteries  of  God  to  reason  ;  but  first  as 


104  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

a  little  child,  learns  what  God  has  taught  in  his  word;  and 
then  endeavours  to  raise  and  advance  his  reason  to  the  divine 
truth.  But  the  whole  structure  of  the  Professor's  argument 
is  the  perfect  antithesis  of  all  this.  For  he  first  consults 
reason's  oracle ;  hears  its  imagined  response,  and  then  pro- 
ceeds to  reconcile  the  mysteries  of  God  therewith. 

But  it  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that  the  credibility  of  what 
the  Scriptures  teach  depends  upon  their  authority.  And 
hence  whether  "  reason  reluctates"  or  willingly  assents,  we 
are  still  acting  rationally,  when  we  receive  any  doctrine  or 
teaching  of  God  upon  the  mere  authority  of  Scripture,  without 
any  confirmatory  evidence  of  reason  whatever.  And  if  this 
be  "  resigning  my  reason,"  or  "  doing  violence"  thereto,  I 
can  only  say  that  I  wish  thus  to  resign,  and  violate  it  while 
I  live.  Nor  let  the  acute  remark  of  Bacon  be  forgotten,  that 
if  we  believe  only  that  which  is  agreeable  to  our  sense  or 
reason,  "  we  give  consent  to  the  matter,  and  not  to  the 
author,  which  is  no  more  than  we  would  do  to  a  suspected 
and  discredited  witness."  And  Locke  (Posthumous  Works,) 
also  remarks  that  "  Therefore  I  gratefully  receive,  and  re- 
joice in  the  light  of  revelation,  which  sets  me  at  rest  in  many 
things,  the  manner  of  which  my  poor  reason  can  by  no 
means  make  out  to  me;"  a  sentiment  that  infers  a  clear 
acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that  it  is  a  small  matter  whether 
reason  can  or  cannot  furnish  confirmatory  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  every  thing  which  God  has  advanced  in  his  word. 
And  I  consider  it  more  than  doubtful  whether  any  good  has 
ever  resulted  from  overstrained  efforts  to  harmonize  reason 
and  revelation ;  especially  when  the  beginning  has  been 
made  (not  at  the  right  end,  like  that  of  Bishop  Butler,  but) 
at  the  wrong  end  like  that  of  Professor  Bush. 

Moreover  it  ought  never  to  be  presumed  that  true  reason 
or  philosophy  can  really  conjiict  with  revelation:  and  in 
cases  where  they  are  supposed  to  do  so,  it  is  a  fair  and 
rational  presumption  that  the  error  is  in  ourselves,  and  that 
our  argument  or  deduction  is  wrong.  Pascal  has  truly  re- 
marked that  "  the  highest  attainment  of  reason,  is  to  know 
that  there  is  an  infinity  of  knowledge  beyond  its  limits.  It 
must  be  sadly  weak  if  it  has  not  discovered  this."*  And  the 
Psalmist  referring  to  the  transcendent  greatness  and  glory 

*  Thoughts  on  Religion,  Chap.  X.  p.  134. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  105 

of  divine  things,  exclaims,  "Such  knowledge  is  too  wonder- 
ful for  me:  it  is  high,  I  cannot  attain  to  it."  Psalms  cxxxix.  6. 
Hence,  when  our  puny  darkened  minds  attempt  to  grasp 
more  of  these  things  than  God  has  seen  proper  to  reveal,  it 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  we  become  entangled  in  the 
mazes  of  inextricable  error.  In  such  an  attempt,  the  mightiest 
intellect  can  only  become  bewildered.  There  is  likewise  a 
strong  apparent  resemblance  between  truth  and  error ;  and 
hence  the  propriety  of  suspecting  our  own  inferences  from 
mere  reason,  rather  than  the  plain  declarations  of  the  all-wise 
God.  **  There  is  no  truth,"  says  Cicero,  "  which  has  not 
some  falsehood  connected  with  it."*  And,  in  fact,  it  is  not 
strange  that  error  and  fasehood  are  more  congenial  to  the 
depraved  mind  of  man  than  truth  itself.  Such  considerations 
may  well  induce  the  theorist  to  pause  in  his  proud  specula- 
tions upon  the  character  and  truth  of  Almighty  God.  It  is 
an  easy  thing  in  this  country  and  in  this  age,  to  scatter 
"  firebrands,  arrows,  and  death,"  and  mean  no  harm  by  it. 
But  God  will  justly  hold  us  responsible  for  the  sentiments 
which  we  inculcate.  We  shall  not  have  to  answer  it  is  true, 
for  the  weakness  of  our  intellects,  but  we  shall  be  held  guilty 
if  we  use  them  not  aright.  Their  imperfection  may  be  ex- 
cused, but  when  through  neglect  or  indifference  we  wander 
from  the  truth,  by  the  adoption  of  a  pernicious  principle,  and 
thus  abuse  the  intellect  which  God  has  given,  we  may  well 
expect  that  such  abuse  shall  be  laid  to  our  charge. 

The  conclusion  from  the  foregoing  remarks  is,  that  reason 
is  in  her  appropriate  place,  in  discussing,  (however  closely,) 
the  question  whether  God  has  spoken  to  man ;  and  when 
scrutinizing  the  evidences  by  which  revealed  religion  would 
support  its  claims.  She  is  in  her  place  in  determining  the 
principles  upon  which  that  revelation  is  to  be  expounded. 
And,  having  ascertained  its  import,  she  may  apropriately 
also  seek  in  the  works  of  God  for  analogies  and  confirma- 
tory evidence  and  illustration  of  the  truths  announced  by 
God.  But  she  is  out  of  her  sphere  the  moment  she  com- 
mences with  her  own  deductions  and  seeks  by  "accommoda- 
tion" or  otherwise  to  harmonize  the  declarations  of  God 
therewith ;  or  if  she  fail  to  do  this,  she  is  sadly  out  of  her 
place  to  "  pronounce  the  averments  of  revelation,"  "  a  forgery 

*  De  Natura  Deorum,  Lib.  I. 


106  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY,  ETC. 

and  a  lie."  And,  in  a  word,  she  is  out  of  her  place  when- 
ever she  ventures  to  sit  as  umpire  on  the  contents  of  revela- 
tion, and  so  decide  the  question  whether  what  God  halh  said 
is  fasehood  or  truth.* 


*  Since  writing  the  foregoing,  it  has  occurred  to  mind  that  Pre- 
sident Edwards  had  written  on  this  subject.  Had  I  thought  of  this 
sooner,  I  should  doubtless  have  made  the  present  chapter  much  longer. 
See  his  most  admirable  essay  in  Part  I.  Chapter  VII.,  of  "  Miscella- 
neous Observations,"  Works,  Vol.  VII.  p.  261. 


PART  11. 


PROFESSOR  bush's  REMARKS  ON  THE  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT  CONSIDERED. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE    PRINCIPLE    OP    INTERPRETATION    ADVOCATED    BY    PROFESSOR    BUSH, 
CONSIDERED 

As  a  preliminary  to  the  consideration  of  the  Scripture  argu- 
ment for  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  it  is  of  importance  to 
consider  what  are  the  principles  upon  which  Professor  Bush 
and  myself  have  endeavoured  to  arrive  at  the  import  of  the 
Holy  Oracles. 

Speaking  of  his  principles  of  interpretation,  the  Professor 
correctly  remarks  that  "  a  theory  of  interpretation  which 
goes  essentially  to  change  the  established  view  of  this  tenet, 
(the  resurrection),  must  necessarily  work  a  correspondent 
change  in  our  estimate  of  a  whole  class  of  subjects  bearing 
upon  the  theme  of  human  destiny  in  another  life.  Now  it 
is  certain  that  the  conclusions  to  which  I  have  arrived,  and 
which  will  be  found  embodied  in  the  ensuing  pages,  must,  if 
built  upon  sound  premises,  present  the  grand  future  under 
an  entirely  new  aspect."  Preface  p.  v.  And  again,  he  says, 
"  We  have  no  fear  of  being  convicted,  before  an  enlightened 
tribunal,  of  having  periled  the  weal  of  the  sacred  oracles  by 
the  advocacy  of  a  false  principle  of  interpretation.  We  can- 
not conceive  that  the  homage  due  to  a  revelation  from  God, 
requires  us  to  forego  the  inevitable  deductions  of  that  reason 
with  which  he  has  endowed  us."  p.  29.  He  therefore  evi- 
dently does  not  consider  his  theory  of  interpretation  either 
as  new  or  hazardous. 


108       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

But  in  order  then  to  exhibit  a  full  and  fair  statement  of  the 
Professor's  hermeneutics,  we  shall  first  present  his  enuncia- 
tion of  them  as  principles  ;  and  then  his  application  of  them 
to  the  doctrines  and  language  of  Scripture. 

1.  We  took  occasion  on  a  former  page  to  remark  that  his 
principles  of  interpretation,  as  stated  in  connexion  with  his 
argument  from  reason,  appeared  to  be  irreconcileably  incon- 
sistent. He  speaks  of  revelation,  as  if  it  were  the  duty  of 
reason  to  bow  implicitly  to  its  statements  ;  and  of  reason,  as 
if  its  deductions  were  equal  or  paramount  to  the  announce- 
ments of  revelation.  But  this  is  not  peculiar  to  Professor 
Bush;  for  all  the  advocates  of  the  accommodation  principle, 
(unless  they  are  like  Wegscheider  and  Ammon,  downright 
infidels,)  fall  into  similar  inconsistencies.  But  both  of  these 
principles,  cannot,  of  course,  be  consistently  entertained,  by 
Professor  Bush.     One  or  the  other  must  be  abandoned. 

In  our  delineation  of  his  principles,  we  begin  with  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  his  Preface.  "  But  here  I  am  accosted 
again  by  the  stern  interrogatory,  what  right  has  reason  to 
demand  satisfaction  at  all  on  a  point  of  doctrine  addressed 
solely  to  faith?  To  this  I  reply,  that  reason  certainly  has  a 
right  to  claim  to  be  clearly  informed  as  to  what  is  the  doc- 
trine to  be  believed ;  nor  can  it  possibly  be  required  to  forego 
its  prerogatives  in  dealing  with  a  professed  revelation  from 
heaven,  containing  the  points  to  which  our  assent  is  de- 
manded. While  it  is  the  office  of  reason  reverently  to  re- 
ceive all  that  God  has  clearly  and  incontrovertibly  taught,* 
reason  must  still  act  in  determining  the  true  sense  of  what  he 
has  taught.  It  is  human  reason  that  originates  the  rules  of 
interpretation  for  the  inspired  volume,  and  we  claim  nothing 
more  for  it  than  its  appropriate  function,  when  it  is  thus 
called  in  to  decide  the  meaning  of  revelation.  This  meanings 
when  really  attained,  must  always  be  in  harmony  with  its 
own  oracles.  All  truth  must  of  necessity  be  eternally  con- 
sistent with  itself.  No  man  is  required  to  hold  views  of 
revelation  to  which  a  sound  and  enlightened  science  or  phi- 
losophy can  solidly  object.  No  intelligent  believer  in  the 
Bible  will  yield  the  rationality  of  his  faith  to  the  sceptical 
assailant.     He  will  give  to  no  one  on  this  score  a  vantage 

*  But  how  are  we  to  know  when  a  thing  is  thus  taught?  Seeing 
that  the  Professor  makes  it  a  sufficient  reason  to  deny  that  any  truth 
is  so  taught  that  plainly  conflicts  with  his  reason  or  philosophy? 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  109 

ground  on  which  he  can  laugh  in  his  sleeve  at  the  weakness 
or  credulity  which  receives,  as  points  of  faith,  dogmas  at 
war  with  known  facts  or  unimpeachable  deductions.  ,  If  the 
averments  of  that  word  which  professes  to  have  emanated 
from  the  Omniscient  Spirit,  clash  with  any  positive,  fixed, 
irrefragable  truth  in  the  universe,  then  the  word  itself  must 
be  a  forgery  and  a  lie;  for  God  would  never  set  one  truth 
against  another.  Panoplied  by  this  principle,  which  is  as 
firm  as  the  perpetual  hills,  if,  in  the  careful  scanning  of  that 
word,  the  letter  speaks  a  language  contrary  to  clearly  ascer- 
tained  facts  in  nature  and  science,  he  will  take  it  as  type, 
figure,,  allegory,  metaphor,  symbol,  accommodation,  anthro- 
pomorphism— any  thing  rather  than  the  declaration  of  abso- 
lute verity.  His  Bible  comes  from  the  same  source  with  the 
philosopher's  boasted  reason.  God  is  the  infinite  Reason, 
and  it  is  impossible  that  the  reception  of  his  word  can  involve 
the  denial  of  that  lofty  prerogative  in  man."  Pp.  x.  and  xi. 

The  suicidal  inconsistencies  which  mark  this  paragraph, 
and  such  a  presentation  of  the  subject,  have  been  sufficiently 
noticed  on  a  former  page.  With  all  its  saving  clauses  the 
passage  is  sufficiently  revolting.  And  yet  it  is  the  most 
favourable  presentation  of  his  principle  of  interpretation 
which  is  to  be  found  in  the  work  of  Professor  Bush.  Other 
extracts  will  be  furnished  presently.  But  before  we  proceed 
to  furnish  them,  I  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Rationalists  of  Germany  state  their  principle  of  "  accom- 
modation,^^ (which,  since  the  time  of  Semler,  has  filled  their 
country  with  infidelity)  in  the  same  language,  and  charac- 
terized also  by  the  same  inconsistency  so  glaringly  ap- 
parent in  the  foregoing  extract.  How  perfectly  coincident 
with  the  language  of  Professor  Bush  are  the  following  pas- 
sages from  Dr.  Rohr,  (the  great  champion  of  Rationalism  in 
the  present  day:)  "Christian  Rationalism  denies  not  the 
fact  of  an  extraordinary  revelation  from  God  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  &c.  It  does  not,  in  respect  to  finding  and  pur- 
suing the  way  to  eternal  bliss,  refer  man  to  his  own  reason, 
as  the  source  of  the  highest  ideas  and  truths ;  but  only 

CLAIMS  FOR  HIM  THE  RIGHT,  AND  IMPOSES  ON  HIM  THE 
DUTY,  OF  SIFTING  AND  PROVING  THAT  WHICH  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN REVELATION  MAKES  KNOWN  ON  THE  SUBJECT,  BY 
COMPARISON  WITH    THE    RELIGIOUS    IDEAS  AND    PRINCIPLES 

OF  HUMAN  reason;  in  order  that  in  the  concerns  of  his 
eternal  salvation,  he  may  show  himself  to  be  neither  blind 

10 


110       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

nor  credulous.'''*  Allgem.  Kirch.  Zeit.  for  March  8,  1829. 
And  yet  in  his  "  Letters  on  Rationalism,"  he  thus  speaks  : 
"With  the  Rationalist  it  is  reason  alone  that  decides  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  in  the  adoption  of  religious  doctrines. 
He  admits  the  autharity  of  the  Scriptures  only  where  they 
coincide  with  his  own  convictions ;  and  that  not  as  the 
determining  ground  of  those  convictions,  for  these  he  re- 
gards as  true  on  their  own  grounds  of  reason."  Kant,  also, 
taught  that  "  the  revelation  which  has  come  into  our  hands, 
should  be  explained  throughout  in  a  sense  which  shall  co- 
incide with  the  general  practical  rules  of  a  religion  of  pure 
reason."  See  his  '■'•Religion  within  the  bounds  of  Reason,^'' 
pp.  157-160.  Hahn,  in  his  celebrated  essay  on  ^^  The 
Grammatico-Historical  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures" 
(in  which  he  gave  the  ^^accommodation  principle''''  its  death 
wound  in  Germany,)  thus  speaks  of  the  principle  which  has 
been  adopted  by  Professor  Bush,  and  is  clearly  embodied  in 
the  extract  above  quoted  from  his  work.  "This  philoso- 
phical, or,  as  it  is  also  called,  rational  interpretation,  which 
was  already  practised  in  the  schools  of  the  Socinians  and 
Cartesians,  has  been  often  termed  since  the  middle  of  the 
last  century,  the  liberal  interpretation  ;  because  in  homage 
to  the  philosophy  of  the  time^  it  has  relaxed  so  much  of  the 
strictness  of  the  biblical  doctrines  as  the  spirit  of  the  age 
demanded.  This  so-called  philosophical  exegesis  has  made 
its  appearance  in  the  greatest  variety  of  shapes  and  modifi- 
cations, according  to  the  change  of  systems  and  the  spirit 
of  the  age."  And  then,  after  referring  to  the  system  advo- 
cated by  Kant,  he  adds :  "And  so  it  is  with  every  so-called 
philosophical  interpretation.  They  all  extract  from  the 
Scriptures,  or  rather  they  imply  in  the  words  of  Scripture, 
those  opinions  or  ideas  which  the  interpreter  brings  with 
him  to  the  work." 

The  reader  will  also  compare  the  foregoing  with  the  sub- 
joined extracts  from  the  work  of  Professor  Bush,  containing 
further  statements  of  his  principles  of  interpretation.  Re- 
ferring to  the  expressions  of  Scripture  respecting  the  resur- 
rection, he  says  :  "  This  we  concede  is  Scripture  language, 
and  the  simple  use  of  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  never  be  a  ground  of  censure  towards  any  man 
who  uses  it  with  pure  motives.  Still  we  are  at  full  liberty 
to  inquire  into  its  meaning,  and  to  institute  the  most  rigid 
comparison  between  the  literal  averments  of  holy  writ,  and 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  Ill 

the  inevitable  deductions  of  our  reason  founded  upon  the 
ascertained  results  of  science ;  for  it  is  impossible  that  the 
import  of  the  inspired  oracles,  when  rightly  understood, 
should  ever  he  such  as  to  compel  us  to  forego  the  clear  and 
legitimate  conclusions  which  are  forced  upon  us  by  the  just 
exercise  of  our  rational  faculties.  The  sense,  however, 
which  we  are  constrained  to  put  upon  the  letter  of  the 
sacred  record  may  be  different  from  that  which  is  most 
natively  obvious,  and  such  as  would  never  have  occurred  to 
us,  but  from  an  apparent  conflict  between  the  literal  inter- 
pretation and  the  known  facts  or  irresistible  inferences  de- 
rived from  other,  sources — a  point  upon  which  we  shall  have 
more  to  say  in  the  sequel.  In  the  present  instance  it  is  un- 
questionable that  the  words  quoted  from  our  Saviour's  ad- 
dress to  the  Jews  do  encounter  a  very  formidable  difficulty 
arising  from  the  indubitable  fact,  that  thousands  and  mil- 
lions of  human  bodies  that  were  once  deposited  in  graves 
are  not  there  now,  and  never  will  be  again."  p.  45.*  Again: 
*'  The  consequences  of  truth  belong  to  the  God  of  truth,  and 
to  him  we  may  confidently  leave  them.  The  reader  will 
judge  for  himself  how  far  the  conceded  facts  and  premises 
of  our  argument  (from  reason)  necessitate  the  conclusions 
to  which  we  have  adverted ;  {i.  e.  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  resolves  itself  simply  into  that  of  immortality.) 
If  it  be  inevitable,  we  abide  by  it.  Although  thus  far  pur- 
sued merely  as  an  argument  from  reason  irrespective  of 
revelation,  yet  if  it  be  sound,  we  not  only  calmly  repose  in 
the  conclusion,  (and  Professor  Bush  fully  regards  it  as 
sound,)  but  are  unshaken  also  in  the  conviction,  that  reve- 
lation rightly  interpreted  must  harmonize  with  it.  It  is 
impossible  that  any  two  truths  in  the  universe  should  clash 
with  each  other."  p.  71.  This  is  the  philosophical  inter' 
prefation  with  a  vengeance.  The  Professor  first  becomes 
satisfied  from  reason  what  revelation  ought  to  teach,  and 
then  so  "  modifies"  revelation  that  it  must  harmonize  with  it. 
See  also  pp.  46,  81,  82  and  84. 

Again.  "  What  now  is  the  obvious  matter  of  fact  as  re- 
gards the  particular  subject  of  our  present  discussion  ?  (the 
resurrection.)  Are  not  the  Scriptures  constructed  on  this 
point,  as  on  all  others  having  respect  to  physical  subjects, 

*  The  singular  mistake  of  Professor  Bush  in  this  reference  to  the 
words  of  our  Saviour  we  have  already  pointed  out  in  our  reply  to 
Objection  VI.  in  Chapter  V.  above. 


112  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

in  reference  to  the  then  state  of  knowledge — to  the  popular 
impression  and  belief — among  those  for  whom  they  were 
originally  designed  1  And  did  the  Jews  and  early  Chris- 
tians know  what  we  know  in  relation  to  our  physical  or- 
ganization 1  Was  the  science  of  animal  chemistry  developed 
in  those  early  ages?  Were  they  skilled  in  anthropology?" 
&c.  pp.  90,91.  This  statement  embodies  the  position  which 
is  the  very  corner-stone  of  German  neology.  lis  originator 
was  John  Solomon  Semler;  and  the  reader  may  find  an 
exhibition  of  it  in  his  Geschicthe  der  Christlichen  Glaubens- 
lehre,  (by  far  the  most  important  of  all  Semler's  publications,) 
prefixed  to  each  of  the  three  volumes  of  Baumgarten's  Theo- 
logischer  Streitig'keittn,  Halle,  1762.  And  in  reference  to 
this  principle,  as  adopted  and  taught  by  him,  Tholuck 
(whose  candour  will  not  be  suspected)  remarks:  "The 
Gospels,  in  his  view,  were  designed  only  for  the  Jews,  and 
are  adapted  only  to  them.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  leading 
principle  of  Semler's  interpretation,  viz.,  that  the  contents  rf 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  of  a  local  and  temporary 
character.  This  is  the  source  of  the  corruption  which  he 
introduced  into  all  the  departments  of  theology.  It  is  at 
once  obvious  what  influence  such  a  principle  of  inter- 
pretation must  have  upon  doctrinal  theology.  A  mode  of 
interpretation  which  finds  in  the  New  Testament  nothing 
but  what  is  local  and  temporary,  cuts  off  the  very  roots 
from  which  all  the  vitality  of  theology  springs."*  The 
principles  advocated  by  Professor  Bush  not  only  logically 
infer,  but  he  actually  announces  this  very  principle  of  Sem- 
ler. See  pp.  238,  239.  But  instead  of  assigning  this  local 
and  temporary  character  to  revelation,  by  limiting  its  import 
thus  in  respect  to  its  great  doctrines  of  the  resurrection,  judg- 
ment, &c.,  "  to  those  for  whom  it  was  originally  designed," 
how  much  more  noble  and  truly  philosophical  would  it  have 
been  to  admit  the  statement  of  Bacon  on  the  subject.  True 
philosophy  and  theology  harmonize  in  attesting  its  truth. 
"The  Scriptures,"  says  this  greatest  of  men,  "being  written 
to  the  thoughts  of  men,  and  to  the  succession  of  all  ages, 
with  a  foresight  of  all  heresies,  contradictions,  differing 
estates  of  the  church,  yea,  and  particularly  of  the  elect,  are 
not  to  be  interpreted  only  according  to  the  latitude  of  the 
proper  sense  of  the  place,  and  respectively  towards  that 

♦  See  Tholuck's  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Revolution  in  Theology, 
vv'hich  commenced  in  1750  in  Germany. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  113 

present  occasion ^  whereupon  the  words  were  uttered,  or, 
in  precise  congruity  or  contexture  with  the  words  before  or 
after,  in  contemplation  of  the  principal  scope  of  the  place; 
but  have  in  themselves,  not  only  totally  or  collectively, 
but  distributively  in  clauses  and  words,  infinite  springs  and 
streams  of  doctrine  to  water  the  church  in  every  part."^ 

Again,  the  Professor,  on  pp.  241, 242,  thus  repeats  the  sen- 
timent :  "  That  the  expression  (John  vi.  39,  40)  is  conformed 
to  the  usual  mode  in  which  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous 
was  spoken  of  among  the  Jews,  is  unquestionable.  Still  we 
cannot  deem  ourselves  precluded  from  referring  again  to 
the  principle,  somewhat  fully  developed  on  a  previous  page, 
(p.  238,)  on  which  many  things  in  our  Lord's  addresses  to 
the  Jews  are  to  be  interpreted. "f  This,  surely,  is  a  suffi- 
ciently broad  avowal  of  Semler's  principle  of  accommoda- 
tion to  justify  the  severest  censure  on  a  scholar  who  can 
present  it  to  the  churches  now  as  an  unquestioned  principle 
of  hermeneutics.  How  exactly  does  it  tally  with  the  doc- 
trine of  Semler's  "  little  local  Jewish  ideas,^^  let  Dr.  Tho- 
luck  tell.  In  his  History  of  Rationalism  he  says :  "All 
the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  it  was  maintained, 
are  either  accommodations  to  Jewish  prejudices,  *  little  local 
ideas,'  according  to  his  (Semler's)  favourite  expression, 
(even  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
class  among  these  little  local  ideas,)  or  they  are  expressed  in 
such  terms,  that  we  cannot,  in  our  times,  ascertain  their 
import,  &c.  &c.  On  such  an  hypothesis,  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  Christianity  can  have  any  positive  doctrines. 
Nothing  is  more  natural  or  more  legitimate,  than  that  the 
Rationalist  theologians,  as  Henke,  VVegscheider,  and  Bret- 
schneider  should,  in  carrying  out  Semler's  views,  make  it 

*  Advancement  of  Learning,  Book  II.,  Works,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  78,  79. 
The  same  sentiment  is  thus  beautifully,  but  more  emphatically  an- 
nounced in  his  De  Augment.  Scient.  Lib.  IX.  c.  1:  "  Meminisse  autem 
oportet,  Deo  Scripturarura  auctori  duo  ilia  patere,  quag  humana  in- 
geniafugiunt:  secreta  nimirum  cordis,ei  successionestemporis.  Quam- 
obrem,  cum  Scripturarum  dictamina  talia  sunt,  ut  ad  cor  scribanlur,  et 
omnium  seculorum  vicissitudines  complectantur. — Altera,  quod  non 
ad  eos  solum  locuius  est,  qui  tunc  aderant^  sed  ad  nos  etiam,  qui 
viviMus,  et  ad  omnis  avi  ac  loci  homines,  quibus  evangelium  fuerit 
pradicandumy  Works,  Vol.  II.,  p.  429.  This  is  true.  Away  then 
with  the  notion  of  the  merely  local  and  temporary  character  of  the 
revelation  of  God ! 

t  The  same  principles  are  broadly  asserted  also  on  pp.  244,  245 
269,  273,  278,  279,  345,  389,  390,  &c. 

10* 


114       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

their  chief  concern  to  exhibit  the  subject  historically,  and 
notice  the  various  changes  which  have  occurred  in  views  of 
doctrine ;  and,  finally,  examine  the  basis  of  the  Jewish  no- 
tions, out  of  which  Christian  theology  sprung." 

2.  In  the  application  of  this  principle  to  the  interpretation 
of  texts  and  doctrines  of  Scripture,  Professor  Bush  is  very 
unwilling  to.  admit  that  he  does  any  violence  to  the  latter. 
He  utters  many  disclaimers  to  this  effect,  and  it  would  be 
rather  singular  if  he  did  not.  But  who,  I  would  ask,  among 
all  the  Rationalists  of  Germany,  will  admit  that  they  interpret 
the  Bible  on  this  principle  in  any  other  than  a  natural  man- 
ner? Semler  himself  would  have  been  shocked  at  the  impu- 
tation against  himself  of  using  violence  in  interpreting  it. 

To  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  Professor 
applies  the  principle  in  the  following  manner.  Speaking  of 
the  evidence  that  his  body  literally  arose,  derived  from  the  fact 
that  his  disciples  touched  him,  and  that  he  ate  before  them,  the 
Professor  remarks,  "As  to  the  act  of  eating — it  was  doubtless 
an  optical  act;"  and  p.  154,  "  the  phenomena  indicating  a 
material  body  to  the  senses  of  the  disciples  must  have  been 
miraculously  assumed.  In  other  words,  they  were  appear- 
ances.^^ p.  162.  On  page  164,  he  asserts  that  Christ's 
"  earthly  tenement"  was  "  dispersed;^'*  and  on  page  165,  he 
boldly  applies  to  the  great  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  our 
Saviour  the  Semlerian  principle  as  follows : — "  We  may 
admit,  indeed,  that  the  disciples  supposed  that  the  body  which 
they  saw  and  handled  was  the  veritable  body  of  their  cruci- 
fied Lord,  and  that  in  their  preaching  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  they  had  no  other  idea  than  that  of  the  reanimation 
of,  his  body  of  flesh.  Under  the  influence  of  those  carnal 
apprehensions  which  they  then  cherished,  it  was  scarcely  to 
be  expected  that  they  should  have  come  to  any  other  conclu- 
sion."    (See  also  pp.  164,  166,  167,  168.) 

So  also  is  inspiration  virtually  disposed  of,  or  at  least  left 
so  uncertain,  that  we  cannot  know  when  we  may  safely 
rely  on  a  declaration  of  the  Bible.  Speaking  with  reference 
to  1  Corinthians  xv.  50 — ^53,  he  remarks,  "  He  (Paul)  un- 
doubtedly SUPPOSED  that  this  change  tvas  to  occur  simul- 
taneously with  that  promised  advent  of  the  Saviour  that  was 
to  be  ushered  in  during  the  lifetime  of  that  generation — a 
supposition  built  upon  the  letter  of  numerous  predictions,  but 
which  the  event  has  shown  to  be,  erroneous."  p.  200.  See 
also  all  of  pp.  189—202,  and  215,  216,  251,  252. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  115 

The  doctrine  of  the  judgment  must  in  like  manner  be  ex- 
plained away  so  as  to  agree  with  the  argument  from  reason. 
Speaking  in  reference  to  it,  the  Professor  remarks,  "  The 
result  of  his  inquiries,  if  it  agrees  with  ours,  will  be,  that  our 
Saviour  and  his  apostles  merely  adopted  the  style  of  diction 
which  had  been  immemorial  I  y  prevalent  among  the  Jews 
on  this  subject,  and  which  is  no  doubt  built  upon  the  current 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament."  p.  336.  "  Here  then 
we  have  the  key  to  those  expressions  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Gospels,  in  which  he  speaks  of  raising  the  righteous  *  at  the 
last  day.'  He  does  not  deem  it  expedient  to  depart  from  the 
established  formulas  of  speech  with  which  the  Jews  were 
familiar.  Time  and  the  course  of  events  would  develope  the 
truth,  and  the  subsequent  generations  of  the  church  would 
in  this  respect  possess  an  advantage  withheld,  for  wise  rea- 
sons, from  its  primitive  ages.  The  intimations  respecting  the 
judgment  are,  as  we  conceive,  to  be  interpreted  on  the  same 
principle."  p.  337.     See  also  pp.  346,  347,  &c. 

It  were  easy  to  fill  pages  more  with  similar  extracts  from 
the  Anastasis,  but  the  foregoing  will  be  deemed  sufficient  for 
the  full  development  and  illustration  of  this  principle  as  en- 
tertained and  advocated  by  Professor  Bush.  He  has  thus 
succeeded  in  getting  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  wicked,  and  of  the  judgment  to  come; 
and  on  the  same  principle  it  is  equally  easy  to  get  rid  of 
every  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  that  is  supposed  to  conflict 
with  our  reason  or  our  philosophy.  The  Rationalists  have 
only  applied  the  same  principle  to  the  investigation  of  what 
they  supposed  conflicted  with  these  things,  and  by  an  "  un- 
forced logic"  have  explained  them  all  away.  Like  Professor 
Bush,  they  began  loith  reason,  and  the  process  in  their 
case  was  as  easy,  and  the  result  the  same  as  in  his.  A  few 
illustrations  will  not  be  out  of  place. 

Dr.  Ammon  applies  this  principle  to  the  fact  of  Christ's 
walking  on  the  water.  Reason  forbids  the  supposition  that 
such  a  thing  could  be,  and  hence  the  Gospel  must  be  so  ex- 
plained as  to  harmonize  with  reason  and  philosophy,  for 
"  truth  cannot  be  inconsistent  with  itself."  Hence,  says  he, 
"  9r«g/;T£tTE?v  iTTi  rrh  6dKa.<r<rctv  (in  Matthew  xiv.  26,)  cannot  mean 
to  stand  upon  the  waters,  as  on  land,  as  Jerome  himself 
dreams,  but  to  walk  through  the  waves  in  the  shallow  part, 


116  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

and  then  to  swim."*  Eichhorn  can  find  no  difficulty  in  the 
history  of  the  destruction  of  Korah  and  his  company,  if  we 
only  attend  to  the  true  nature  of  symbolic  language.  "  Might 
not  the  writer,"  says  he,  "  in  order  to  represent  very  strongly 
the  awful  and  unusual  punishment  which  was  threatened, 
viz.  the  burying  them  alive,  call  it  a  swallowing  up  by  the 
earth,  a  going  down  alive  into  the  pit?"  .  And  the  blossom- 
ing of  Aaron's  rod  is  inconceivable  on  any  other  supposition 
than  that  it  was  twined  round  with  buds,  leaves  and  fruit,  to 
indicate  that  he  had  been  chosen  to  the  office  of  high  priest. 
And  according  to  him  the  modern  discovery  of  electricity, 
("  the  advance  of  scientijic  discovery,'''')  fully  explains  the 
shining  of  Moses'  face.  Neither  could  he  conceive  how 
God  should  come  down  on  Sinai»  Hence,  says  he,  Moses 
kindled  a  great  fire  on  the  top  of  the  mountain.  And  as  a 
great  thunder-storm  arose,  he  seized  the  occasion  to  proclaim 
the  law,  (which  he  had  composed  in  his  retirement,)  as  the 
statutes  of  Jehovah,  and  pretended  that  God  had  conversed 
with  him.  And  the  account  of  the  creation  and  fall,  is  only 
a  poetical  and  philosophical  speculation.  Le  Clerc,  however, 
does  not  think  so.  He  (though  he  had  not  ascertained  the 
principle  of  accommodation,  yet)  adopted  Professor  Bush's 
views  of  the  necessity  of  explaining  revelation  so  as  to  har- 
monize with  reason :  and  thinks  that  the  tree  of  life  bore  a 
fruit  which  was  medicinal,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge  one 
that  was  poisonous.     And  in  explaining  the  phrase  "  the 

*  The  reader  may  wish  to  consult  the  original  of  this  precious 
morsel:  "Alio  loco  ejusdem  Evangelistae  (Matthew,)  xiv.  26.  tt^i- 
TTcLTiiv  iTr)  T/iv  SaAsicra-aiv  non  est  fluctibus  insistere  ceu  continenti,  ut 
ipse  somniat  Hieronymus,  sed  ambulare  per  undas  in  regione  vadosa, 
deinde  nature  (v.  29.);  Jesus  enim  discipulis,  qui  propter  venti  impo- 
tentiam  navirn  remis  adpellere  non  poterant,  qum  meando,  turn  na- 
tando  obviam  venit,  Capernaumum  cum  illis  rediturus."  This  is  the 
exposition.  And  see  now  with  what  ludicrous  gravity  he  undertakes 
to  establish  it.  "  Hi^ivcituv  Itt)  t«?  daxd^a-nc  idem  est,  quod  iTriCnivuv 
T«c  Bcixda-crnc  (v.  Vitam  Gregorii  Nazianz.,  Opp.  Colon.  1690.  t.  I.  p.  5.), 
ambulare  per  undas:  deinde  respondet  hebraeico  a^on  >Jfl  by  "jSn, 
Gen.  vii.  18,  Ps.  civ.  26,  quod  de  navibus  usurpatur.  Sap.  Sal.  v.  10. 
vstvg  S'ii^^ojuivit  )cv/ActtvojuiVDv  LcTa^,"  Here  surely  is  criticism  enough  to 
prove  the  point,  if  Professor  Bush's  principles  be  correct;  and  stronger 
proof  too  than  the  Professor  has  adduced  in  favour  of  the  distinguish- 
ing propositions  of  his  theory.  See  Prefationem  Edit.  Quint.  Instit. 
Interpret.  Ernesti,  by  C.  F.  Ammon,  Lipsias,  1809.  The  best  edition 
of  the  text,  (with  the  most  contemptible  annotations)  that  has  been 
issued  since  the  time  of  Ernesti. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  117 

eyes  of  them  both  were  opened,"  he  says,  "  after  they  had 
eaten  the  fruit  they  perceived  from  the  pain  in  their  intes- 
tines that  it  was  of  a  noxious  quality."  "  Reason"  forbade 
the  supposition  that  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  should  have 
divided  and  become  as  a  wall  on  either  side  to  let  Israel  pass 
through,  and  therefore  he  concludes  that  the  waters  of  the 
sea  were  driven  by  a  strong  north  wind  into  the  ocean.  Such 
is  the  result  of  beginning  (as  Professor  Bush  does)  with  the 
deductions  of  reason,  and  ending  with  revelation. 

Dr.  Ammon,  also,  being  unable  to  conceive  how  a  few 
loaves  and  fishes  could  supply  thousands  with  food,  explains 
the  passage  asserting  it  as  follows;  "Jesus  probably  distri- 
buted some  loaves  and  fishes  which  he  had,  to  those  who 
were  around  him ;  and  others  among  the  multitude,  in- 
fluenced thus  by  his  example,  distributed  in  like  manner  the 
provisions  which  they  possessed."  Thiess  cannot  understand 
how  Ananias  could  have  been  struck  dead,  as  the  letter  of 
Acts  V.  represents ;  and  therefore  concludes,  that  when  his 
dishonesty  was  discovered,  "  he  fell  down  terrified ;  and 
probably  was  carried  out  and  buried  while  still  alive." 
Heinrichs,  however,  thinks  that  this  is  an  unnatural  supposi- 
tion ;  and  explains  the  passage  thus ;  *'  Peter  stabbed  Ana- 
nias ;  and  this  does  not  at  all  disagree  with  the  violent  and 
easily  exasperated  temper  of  Peter."  A  thousand  such  in-, 
stances  can  be  produced  of  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
interpretation  referred  to,  but  these  may  suffice. 

On  this  principle,  therefore,  Semler  explained  away  the 
doctrine  respecting  the  demoniacs  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  of  the  judgment  to 
come.  Other  Rationalists,  following  in  his  footsteps  have 
explained  away  inspiration,  miracles,  and  every  thing  super- 
natural in  the  Bible. 

On  the  same  principle,  Unitarians  have  explained  away 
the  atonement.  Godhead  of  Christ,  &c. 

On  the  same  principle,  the  Universalisls  have  explained 
away  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 

Professor  Bush,  adopting  the  principle,  now  proposes  to 
explain  away  the  resurrection  of  Christ's  body,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  bodies  of  mankind ;  and  also  the  doctrine  of  a 
judgment  to  come,  to  specify  no  other  doctrines.  Is  the 
American  church  then,  prepared  for  the  adoption  of  such  a 
principle? 


118  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 


SECTION  II. 

The  View  entertained  of  this  Principle  by  the  Evangelical  Party 
in  Germany. 

A  brief  notice  of  this  point  will  not  be  out  of  place  here, 
as  the  Germans  have  made  a  fair  trial  of  the  principle  re- 
ferred to.  I  had  hoped  that  their  sad  experience  of  the  bale- 
ful effects  of  its  adoption,  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the 
church  of  Christ  till  the  end  of  time;  but  it  seems  that  this 
hope  was  fallacious.  The  battle  must  be  fought  over  again 
in  this  country;  and  it  well  becomes  those,  to  whom  under 
God,  the  purity  and  the  welfare  of  Zion  are  primarily  com- 
mitted, to  gird  on  their  harness,  and  prepare  for  the  conflict. 
It  has  been  considered  perfectly  congenial  with  the  princi- 
ples of  Unitarianism,  and  Universalism ;  and  its  adoption  by 
these  sectaries  has  created  no  anxiety.  But  if  there  must  be 
an  attempt  made  to  defend  it,  and  introduce  it  into  American 
theology,  the  sooner  the  conflict  comes  on,  and  the  ministers 
of  Christ  are  compelled  to  lake  sides,  the  better. 

The  views  entertained  of  it  by  the  evangelical  party  in 
Germany  are  soon  told.  And,  1.  They  view  it  as  utterly 
false  and  fallacious  as  a  principle  of  interpretation.  Ernesti, 
who  was  flourishing  in  Germany  when  it  was  introduced, 
hesitates  not  to  condemn  the  principle  at  once.  See  his  Insti- 
tutio  Interpret.,  Part.  I.,  cap.  I.,  §§.  18-23,  and  pp.  29-33; 
Leipsic,  1809,  or  the  excellent  translation  of  the  same  by 
Professor  Stuart,  pp.  16-19.  So  also  Storr  and  Flatt,  in 
their  Biblical  Theology,  say :  "  Those  who  consider  the 
declarations  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  concerning  the  Old 
Testament,  as  also  many  of  their  declarations  on  other  sub- 
jects, as  being  an  '  accommodation,'  not  only  make  a  very 
arbitrary  supposition,  but  they  violate  the  fundamental  and 
unexceptionable  'principles  of  interpretation,  and  deny  the 
authority  and  credibility  which  we  are  compelled  to  ascribe 
to  both  Jesus  and  his  apostles."  B.  I.  §.  13.*  Hahn,  (above 
referred  to,)  says  in  reference  to  it :  "  When  the  interpreta- 

*  Their  definition  of  accommodation  is  "  a  speaking  in  accordance 
with  the  erroneous  opinions  of  their  hearers,  who  had  too  exalted 
ideas  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  expressing  pre- 
cisely  and  truly  their  own  opinions ;"  (see  uhi  supra,)  the  same  prin- 
ciple precisely  that  is  asserted  by  Professor  Bush. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  119 

tion  of  the  Holy  Scripture  takes  place  in  a  spirit  foreign  to 
them, — a  spirit  therefore  not  holy,  and  consequently  pro- 
fanCf — the  Scriptures  are  not  explained  nor  interpreted, 
but  travestied.''''  Hengstenherg^  in  the  Prolegomena  to  his 
Authentie  des  Pentateuchs,  Erster  Band^  does  not  hesitate 
to  denounce  such  interpretation  as  "  shallow  and  skeptical 
interpretation."  Tholuck,  speaking  of  it,  says :  "  This  is 
the  source  of  the  corruption  which  Semler  introduced  into  all 
the  departments  of  theology."  Hist,  of  Rationalism.  Such 
is  their  view  of  it  as  a  principle  of  interpretation. 

2.  With  respect  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the  prin- 
ciple, their  views  are  very  decided.  Tholuck  denounces 
criticism  founded  on  this  principle  as  "  the  destructive  his- 
torical criticism."  And  again  :  "  Only  '  Jewish  local  ideas' 
were  attached  to  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  this  con- 
tracting, shrivelling  process  was  called  the  purely  his- 
torical method  of  interpretation  :"  and  he  ascribes  the  tran- 
sition of  the  German  theologians,  from  *'  Christianity  to 
infidelity,^''  directly  to  the  adoption  and  carrying  out  of  this 
principle.  Hengstenberg  speaks  of  it  and  its  development 
as  follows  :  ^^ Naturalism, — that  system  which  seeks  to  ex- 
plain all  events  by  the  common  laws  of  nature* — and  this 
tendency  has  its  root  in  the  estrangement  of  the  age  from 
God:^^  and  he  and  Hahn  both  speak  of  the  principle  in  its 
results  as  producing  an  utter  want  of  interest  in  the  doc- 
trinal precepts  of  the  Bible.  In  one  word,  for  it  is  needless 
to  dwell  upon  this  point,  they  consider  it  not  only  a  prepos- 
terous and  unwarrantable,  but  a  perfectly  atrocious  prin- 
ciple, and  one,  which,  in  its  legitimate  results,  cannot  fail  to 
introduce  skepticism  and  an  utter  subversion  of  all  religion. 
And  with  this  view  the  venerable  father  of  our  sacred  litera- 
ture in  this  country  entirely  coincides.  Speaking  of  the 
remarks  of  De  Wette  and  others  in  open  denial  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  he  says  :  "  Little  prepared,  as 
we  in  general  are  in  this  country,  for  such  avowals  with 
regard  to  the   sacred  writers,  still,  I  deem   thIem   far 

PREFERABLE  TO  THE  FASHIONABLE  '  ACCOMMODATION'  DOC- 
TRINE of  the  generation  now  passing  off  the  stage  in  Ger- 

*  Hengstenberg  refers  to  both  Naturalism  and  Rationalism ;  and 
asserts  that  they  are  substantially  the  same  thing.  The  quotation  is, 
therefore,  proper  here ;  for  Professor  Bush's  argument  from  reason  is 
the  great  principle  of  Naturalism  ;  and  his  accommodation  notion,  the 
great  principle  of  Rationalism. 


120  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

many.  We  know  where  to  meet  those  who  openly  make 
such  avowals ;  and  although  we  cannot  agree  with  them  in 
opinion,  we  may  commend  their  frankness  and  honesty." 
Professor  Stuart,  in  Biblic.  Repos.  I.,  p.  60.  This  strong 
language  is  more  than  justified  by  the  facts  in  the  case. 

SECTION  III. 

A  brief  history  of  the  development  and  adoption  of  this  Principle. 

The  consideration  of  this  topic  here  might  well  be  deemed 
irrelevant,  were  it  not  that  the  principles  avowed  in  the  work 
of  Professor  Bush  are  illustrated,  and  their  nature  and  in- 
evitable tendencies  with  singular  accuracy  established,  by  a 
reference  to  this  history.  The  principle  asserted  in  the 
'•^Argument  from  Reason"  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the 
early  Naturalism  of  the  seventeenth  century.  This  will  be 
questioned  by  no  one  who  will  read  Lord  Herbert's  (of 
Cherbury)  writings,  or  only  Tindal's  Christianity  as  Old 
as  the  Creation,  chapters  iv.,  xi.  and  xiv.  A  brief  extract 
or  two  will  establish  the  truth  of  this  statement.  Says  he, 
"  The  truth  of  all  revelation  is  to  be  judged  by  its  agree- 
ment with  the  religion  of  nature."  "  Whatever  is  true  by 
reason  can  never  be  false  by  revelation ;  and  if  God  cannot 
be  deceived  himself,  or  be  willing  to  deceive  men,  the  light 
he  hath  given  to  distinguish  between  religious  truth  and 
falsehood,  cannot,  if  duly  attended  to,  deceive  them  in  things 
of  so  great  moment."  "  To  suppose  any  thing  in  revelation 
inconsistent  with  reason,  and  at  the  same  time  pretend  it  to 
be  the  will  of  God,  is  not  only  to  destroy  that  proof,  on 
which  we  conclude  it  to  be  the  will  of  God,  but  even  the 
proof  of  the  being  of  a  God."  "And  to  suppose  any  thing 
can  be  true  by  revelation  which  is  false  by  reason,  is  not 
to  support  that  thing,  but  to  undermine  revelation  ;  because 
nothing  unreasonable,  nay,  what  is  not  highly  reasonable, 
can  come  from  a  God  of  unlimited,  universal,  and  eternal 
reason. — /  shall  not  be  surprised,  (continues  this  noted  in- 
fidel,) if  for  so  laudable  an  attempt,  as  reconciling-  reason 
and  revelation,  which  have  been  so  long  set  at  variance,  I 
should  be  censured  as  a  freethinker ;  a  title,  that  however 
invidious  it  may  seem,  I  am  far  from  being  ashamed  of." 
And  how  does  he  attempt  to  reconcile  reason  and  revela- 
tion ?     Why  precisely  as  Professor  Bush  does.     He  begins 


^     ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  121 

with  *'  the  irrefragable  deductions  of  reason,"  and  then  en- 
deavours to  explain  revelation  in  accordance  therewith ;  in- 
stead of  beginning,  as  Bishop  Butler  does,  with  revelation. 
Again :  "  The  gospel,  since  it  is  impossible  for  men  at  the 
same  time  to  be  under  different  obligations,  cannot  com- 
mand those  things  which  the  law  of  nature  forbids ;  or 
forbid  what  it  commands."  AVhy  ?  Simply  because  "  no 
two  truths  in  the  universe  can  clash  with  each  other."  For 
like  Professor  Bush,  this  infidel  made  no  distinction  between 
truth  itself  and  that  which  a  man  thinks  is  true  *  These 
extracts  are  sufficient.  For  they  express  the  views  also  of 
Herbert,  Morgan,  Shaf  sbury,  Bolingbroke,  and  the  whole 
tribe  of  the  older  English  infidels. 

In  reference  to  these  principles,  and  their  effect  in  de- 
veloping the  Rationalistic  theory  of  Germany,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  accommodation,  Professor  Tholuck  speaks  as  follows: 
"  The  influence,  direct  and  indirect,  of  English  Deism  upon 
Germany  was  much  greater  than  would  at  first  be  supposed, 
or  than  has  generally  been  believed.  In  England,  we  find 
what  existed  neither  in  France,  nor  in  Holland  and  Italy. 
It  possessed,  as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, a  tolerably  complete  system  of  Rationalism.  A  full 
view  of  what  the  English  Deists  efl^ected  in  the  departments 
of  criticism,  interpretation,  theology,  ethics  and  church  his- 
tory, will  show  how  little  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Rationalists 
belongs  exclusively  to  recent  times ;  and  how  unfounded  is 
the  assertion  of  Bretschneider,  that  Rationalism  is  the  fruit 
of  the  unexampled  progress  of  science  in  the  nineteenth 
century."f 

It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  English  deists 
were  not  the  first  to  assert  this  doctrine.  On  the  contrary, 
they  became  infidels  by  following  out  to  its  legitimate  results, 
the  forementioned  principle,  which  had  been  incautiously 
admitted  by  several  divines.  Le  Clerc  and  Spencer  had 
asserted  it  in  the  time  of  Lord  Herbert ;  and  even  Dr.  Til- 
lotson  ;  Hoadly  also,  and  Dr.  Clarke,  subsequently.  These 
men  took  it  for  granted  without  sufficient  examination,  but 
did  not  carry  it  out  to  its  results.     This  was,  however,  done 

*  See  ^'Christianity  as  Old  as  the  Creaiion^^^  Chap.  IV.  and  XL,  pp. 
62,  63,  154,  155. 

t  This  is  very  like  Professor  Bush's  ''"Knowledse  of  Revelation  Pro- 
gressive,^'' as  applied  by  him  to  the  illustration  of  his  theory.  A  His- 
toria  DogmatiSy  is  sometimes  very  valuable. 

11 


122        THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

SO  effectually  by  the  deists,  that  Dr.  Rohr  in  his  ^^  Letters 
on  Rationalism,''^  (I  quote  from  Professor  Hahn,)  "declares 
plainly  that,  as  the  advocate  of  rationalism,  he  acknowledged 
Herbert  of  Cherbury  and  his  friends  and  followers  as  his 
own  predecessors."  SeeBiblic.  Repos.  I.  Ill — for  a  transla- 
tion of  the  celebrated  essay  of  Hahn,  from  which  the  fore- 
going quotation  is  made. 

But  let  us  consider  how  this  principle,  first  incautiously 
asserted  by  several  divines,  was  nurtured  until  it  produced 
the  precious  blossom  of  "  accommodation,"  which  so  soon 
ripened  into  the  Sodomatical  apple  of  rationalism. 

Dr.  John  Spencer,  Dean  of  Ely,  (Nat.  1630,  Ob.  1693,) 
in  1685*  published  his  work  De  Legihus  Hehrceoruin  Ritu- 
alibus;  and  he  has  in  this  day,  says  Hengstenberg,  found  a 
fellow-spirit  in  Strauss.  There  is  this  difference  between 
the  two,  that  Spencer  was  satisfied  with  operating  against 
revelation  at  a  single  point.  This  difference,  however,  is 
accidental,  and  is  caused  only  by  the  difference  of  the  times 
in  which  they  lived.  One  cannot  free  himself  from  the 
thought,  that  were  Spencer  now  living,  he  would  lay  aside 
this  modesty ;  nay,  that  he  even  then  thought  far  more  than 
he  said. 

In  fact  he  almost  stumbles  upon  the  full  Semlerian  accom- 
modation notion  ;  he  uses  the  term  o-vyKUTdCxa-;?,  (which  means 
accommodation,)  under  which  softening  term  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  charge  upon  God  a  fraus  pia.  Take  a  passage 
or  two : — "  It  is  probable  that  God  in  the  law,  did  deliver 
some  sacred  things  covered  up  under  the  veil  of  types  and 
symbols,  because  of  a  similar  custom  in  use  among  the  wise 
men  of  other  nations,  and  especially  the  Egyptians."  And 
by  adopting  these  heathenish  usages,  God  designed  to  amuse 
his  people,  (like  a  parent  when  he  hands  his  children  a  par- 
cel of  play-things  to  occupy  their  attention  and  prevent  their 
running  into  mischief,)  so  that  they  would  not  hanker  after 
the   amusements  of  the   heathen  worship.     Hear   his  own 

*  Such  is  the  date  of  my  copy;  thoug^h  it  has  lately  gone  the  rounds 
on  very  high  authority,  that  the  first  complete  edition  was  not  issued 
till  1727.  This  work,  (a  good  many  copies  of  which  I  have  seen  in 
this  country,)  is,  according  to  Professor  Tholuck,  calculated  in  the 
highest  degree  to  prepare  the  mind  for  Rationalism.  In  proof  of  which, 
see  but  the  third  paragraph  of  the  "  JL<Z  Lectorem,^^  and  his  **Prefaiio" 
to  lib.  III.,  and  also  cap.  I.  Dissert.  I.  De  Sacrijiciis,  pp.  639 — 676; 
to  specify  no  other  instances. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  123 

words:  "  God  in  the  mean  time,  that  he  might  in  every  way 
prevent  superstition,  adopted  not  a  few  rites  made  sacred  by 
the  use  of  many  ages  and  nations,  and  which  he  knew  to  he 
tolerable  follies;  quos  ineptias  norat  esse  tolerabiles."  Thus 
accommodation  begun  with  God  at  the  beginning  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, according  to  Spencer;  and  why  should  Semler 
have  thought  it  strange  that  it  was  kept  up  until  the  close  of 
the  Bible? 

Spencer's  book  exerted  a  great  influence,  as  appears  from 
the  repeated  reprints  of  it,  and  the  editions  in  Holland  and 
Germany ;  and  not  a  few  theologians  were  short-sighted 
enough  to  coincide  more  or  less  with  him. 

Clericus  (or  Le  Clerc,  Ob.  1736)  adopted  the  hypothesis 
of  Spencer,  without  any  modification  or  improvement.  See 
for  example  his  remark  on  Circumcision,  in  his  Comm.  on 
Gen.  xvii.  10.  In  fact,  every  thing  that  goes  beyond  his 
own  abstract  idea  of  God  he  calls  '■^anthropomorphism'''  (a 
favourite  word  with  Professor  Bush)  and  the  like.  Spencer's 
favourite  word  cvyKATdQcta-iQ  was  also  quite  a  favourite  with 
him,  in  "  reconciling  reason  with  revelation."  We  have  re- 
ferred already  to  some  of  his  comments  in  a  former  section. 
See  also  his  Note  on  Gen.  iii.  24  and  xii.  3,  &c. 

Semler  (Ob.  1792)  followed  Clericus,  (whom  he  studied 
most  intently,)  and  adopted  his  system  entirely.  He  was  a 
pupil  of  Baumgarten,  and  while  listening  to  his  cold-hearted 
phlegmatic  lectures  and  criticisms,  the  great  principle  of 
"  accommodation"  (as  he  tells  us)  first  dawned  upon  his 
mind.  He  now  saw  clearly,  how  revelation  could  be  recon- 
ciled with  reason,  and  rendered  perfectly  harmonious  with 
it.  He  looked  upon  the  philosophy  which  he  had  learned 
from  Wolf,  (who  prepared  the  way  for  the  system  of 
Kant,)  as  "  irrefragably  true."  His  mind,  in  fact,  was  at 
rest  on  this  subject ;  and  the  darling  object  of  his  soul  was 
to  show  revelation  to  be  consistent  therewith. 

J.  D.  Michaelis  (Ob.  1791)  followed  Semler,  and  fell  in  at 
once  with  the  principle  which  he  had  introduced  into  her- 
meneutics.  His  Mosaiches  Recht  evince  on  every  page 
how  nearly  he  followed  in  the  track  of  Spencer  and  Cleri- 
cus; and  the  superior  advantages  which  he  had  derived 
from  knowing  the  principle  of  accommodation  as  clearly 
defined  by  Semler.  And  as  Semler  had  introduced  it  into 
criticism  simply,  (though  he  subsequently  carried  out  its 


124       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

results  into  every  department  of  theology,)  Michaelis  oblig- 
ingly undertook  to  show  its  importance  in  theology.  "  He 
was  one  of  the  few  educated  at  Halle  (says  Tholuck) 
whose  personal  character  evinced  no  traces  of  a  pious  edu- 
cation :"  in  fact,  he  evinced  much  less  regard  for  religion 
than  Semler  himself.  In  1760  (not  1761,  as  it  is  often  in- 
correctly stated,)  he  published  his  Dogmatic  Theology,  in 
which  he  lays  the  foundation  for  the  entire  subversion  of 
Christianity.  It  is  enough  to  state  in  illustration  of  this, 
that  Eichhorn  was  his  pupil,  and  only  carried  out  his  sys- 
tem to  its  legitimate  results. 

Semler  begun  the  application  of  his  accommodation  prin- 
ciple to  the  statements  respecting  the  demoniacs  in  the  New 
Testament.  "  This,"  as  Tholuck  says,  "  was  the  starting 
point  of  Rationalism."  He  also  translated  and  published 
the  notorious  treatise  of  Dr.  Farmer  on  the  same  subject. 
And  it  is  to  be  deeply  regretted  that  Professor  Bush  has  not 
scrupled  to  follow  Semler  in  the  application  of  this  principle 
to  the  same  subject.  See  Anastasis,  p.  244.  Then  followed 
its  application  to  the  existence  of  the  devil,  and  to  the  doc- 
trine of  a  judgment  to  come.  Miracles  followed  next  in  the 
train ;  after  which  came,  with  no  halting  pace,  pantheism 
and  atheism.* 

Thus  from  Professor  Bush's  doctrine  of  reason,  was 
''^eliminated''''  (as  his  spiritual  body  out  of  the  corporeal,) 
the  subtle  and  refined  'principle  of  accommodation.  Surely 
it  is  time  for  those  to  pause,  who,  like  Professor  Bush,  have 
not  scrupled  to  take  the  incipient  steps  to  these  results. 

*  I  have  thought  it  unnecessary  in  this  connexion  to  speak  par- 
ticularly of  the  influence  of  the  philosophy  of  Leibnitz  and  Wolf  in 
developing  the  principles  of  Rationalism,  They  started  with  the 
erroneous  position  of  the  English  Deists  (referred  to  above)  respect- 
ing reason,  Baumgarten  was  a  disciple  of  Wolf,  and  adopted  his 
philosophy,  and  from  his  teachings  Semler  elaborated  the  principle  of 
accommodation^  which  is  intended  only  to  sustain  reason  and  philo- 
sophy against  the  *»  apparently"  contradictory  doctrines  announced  in 
revelation.  *'  God,"  say  Semler  and  his  followers,  "  accommodated 
his  teaching  to  the  little  local  ideas  of  the  Jews;"  and  hence  reason 
and  philosophy  must  decide  what  is  true  as  well  as  false  in  the  Bible. 
And  nothing  can  be  admitted  to  be  true  therein,  which  reason  cannot 
explain  and  justify  on  its  own  principles.  Thus  reason  justifies  ac- 
commodation,  and  accommodation  justifies  reason:  and  Professor  Bush 
justifies  both. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  125 

SECTION  IV. 

Objections  to  the  Principle  of  Accommodation. 

1.  The  legitimate  results  of  this  principle,  as  developed 
by  thgse  who  have  adopted  it,  and  carried  it  out  logically, 
show  it  to  be  utterly  false,  and  indefensible. 

The  following  passage  (from  the  preface  to  the  English 
translation  of  Knapp's  Theology,)  refers  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Rationalists,  and  their  principle  of  accommodation;  and 
is,  as  the  reader  will  see,  singularly  applicable  to  the  princi- 
ples asserted  by  Professor  Bush.  "Theologians,  it  is  said,- 
have  no  choice  left  them,  and  must  adopt  the  splendid  results 
which  are  every  day  disclosed  in  all  departments  of  know- 
ledge ;  and  if  they  would  not  suffer  theology  to  fall  into  con- 
tempt, must  admit  some  compromise  between  its  antiquated 
doctrines  and  the  progress  of  light.  To  effect  this  compro- 
mise, is  the  office  assigned  to  modern  Rationalism,  by  one 
of  its  ablest  apologists.  Rationalism,  says  Bretschneider, 
(in  his  Sendschreiben  §.  78,)  designs  to  restore  the  inter- 
rupted harmony  between  theology  and  human  sciences,  and 
is  the  necessary  product  of  the  scientific  cultivation  of  modern 
times.  But  whence  the  necessity  of  this  compromise!  It  is 
a  necessity  with  which  the  believer  in  revelation  can  never 
be  pressed,  and  which  certainly  was  not  felt  by  theologians 
of  the  old  stamp.  They  had  not  asserted  their  independence 
of  the  pope  and  the  schoolmen,  only  to  yield  it  again  to  the 
empiric;  and  as  to  the  advantages  of  this  compromise,  what 
has  really  been  accomplished  by  this  far-famed  rationalism, 
after  all  its  promises?  It  professed  friendship  for  Christianity, 
but  has  proved  its  deadly  foe;  standing  within  the  pale  of 
the  church,  it  has  been  in  league  with  the  enemy  without, 
and  has  readily  adopted  every  thing  which  infidelity  could 
engender,  and  as  studiously  rejected  every  thing  which  true 
philosophy  has  done  to  confirm  the  truths  of  revelation.  It 
promised  to  save  theology  from  contempt;  and  how  has  this 
promise  been  performed?  In  the  days  of  Spener,  theology 
was  the  queen  of  sciences,  so  acknowledged  by  the  mouth 
of  Bacon,  Leibnitz,  Haller,  and  others,  their  chosen  oracles. 
She  wore  the  insignia  of  divinity?  and  '  filled  her  odorous 
lamp'  at  the  very  original  fountain  of  light;  but,  in  an  evil 
hour,  she  took  this  flattering  rationalism  to  her  bosom.   Now, 

11* 


126  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

stripped  of  every  mark  of  divinity,  cut  off  from  her  native 
sources  of  light,  and  thrust  out  into  the  dark,  this  foolish 
virgin  is  compelled  to  say  to  her  sister  sciences,  '  Give  me 
of  your  oil,  for  my  lamp  has  gone  out."  p.  15,  London  edi- 
tion. 

Another  writer  (in  the  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Know- 
ledge,) thus  truly  and  accurately  describes  the  effects  re- 
sulting from  the  adoption  of  the  principle  referred  to.  "  Sem- 
ler  appears  to  have  been  the  author  of  that  famous  theory 
of  accommodation,  which,  in  the  hands  of  his  followers, 
became  the  most  formidable  weapon  ever  devised  for  the 
destruction  of  Christianity.  As  far  as  Germany  is  con- 
cerned, this  language  is  not  too  strong ;  and  we  may  addy 
that  it  was  the  most  impvdent  theory  ever  advocated  by 
men  professing  still  to  he  Christians;  and  one,  the  avowal 
of  which,  can  scarcely  be  accounted  for,  except  on  the 
ground,  that  as,  because  of  their  interests,  it  was  not  con- 
venient for  these  teachers  of  theology,  and  ministers  of  the 
German  churches,  to  disavow  Christianity  altogether,  it  was 
devised  and  maintained,  in  order  to  connect  the  profits  of 
the  Christian  profession  with  substantial  and  almost  undis- 
guised deism.  Thus  the  chairs  of  theology,  and  the  very 
pulpits  were  turned  into  the  '  seats  of  the  scornful ;'  and 
where  doctrines  were  at  all  preached,  they  were  too  fre- 
quently of  this  daring  and  infidel  character.  It  became 
even,  at  least,  a  negative  good,  that  the  sermons  delivered 
were  often  discourses  on  the  best  modes  of  cultivating  corn, 
and  wine,  and  the  preachers  employed  the  Sabbath  and  the 
church,  in  instructing  their  flocks  how  to  choose  the  best 
kind  of  potatoes,  or  to  enforce  upon  them  the  benefits  of 
vaccination.  Undisguised  infidelity  has  in  no  country  treated 
the  grand  evidences  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  with  greater 
contumely,  or  been  more  offensive  in  its  attacks  upon  the 
prophets,  or  more  ridiculous  in  its  attempts  to  account,  on 
natural  principles,  for  the  miracles.  Extremes  of  every 
kind  were  produced,  philosophical  mysticism,  pantheism, 
and  atheism." 

This  description,  high-wrought  as  it  may  appear  to  be, 
barely  comes  up  to  the  reality.  And  that  this  state  of  things 
is  directly  traceable  to  the  adoption  of  the  accommodation 
principle,  is  declared  with  one  voice  by  the  evangelical  party 
in  Germany.  Hear  Professor  Tholuck ;  "  Here  then,  we 
have  the  leading  principle  of  Semler's  interpretation,  viz., 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  127 

that  the  contents  of  the  whole  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  of  a  local  and  temporary  character.  This  is  the 
source  of  the  corruption  which  he  introduced  into  all  the 
departments  of  theology. ^^  Storr  and  Flatt  aver  that  "  the 
theory  of  accommodation  involves  the  whole  of  revelation  in 
uncertainty." 

Now  a  principle  which  inevitably  leads  to  such  conse- 
quences, must  be  fallacious  and  false ;  but  such  are  the  con- 
sequences which  legitimately  result  from  the  adoption  of  the 
principle  of  accommodation.  Nor  would  it  be  of  any  force 
to  reply  to  this  by  saying  that  these  consequences  resulted 
from  the  ahuse  of  the  principle  referred  to ;  for  first,  the 
assertion  would  be  false ;  and  secondly,  it  would  be  of  no 
service  to  Professor  Bush  in  the  present  discussion,  if  we 
should  even  grant  the  assertion.  Because  he  has  made  the 
same  application  of  the  principle  which  Semler  did;  and  of 
course  we  may  well  expect  like  results  to  follow,  when  it  is 
carried  out. 

2.  Our  next  objection  to  the  principle  under  discussion  is, 
that  it  is  wholly  unphilosophical  and  unreasonable,  and  con- 
trary to  all  correct  principles  of  interpretation.  This  has 
been  conclusively  shown  already  in  our  remarks  on  Profes- 
sor Bush's  argument  from  reason,  and  also  in  the  former 
part  of  the  present  chapter.  If  revelation  were  designed  for 
the  Jews  only,  and  for  the  generations  to  which  it  was  origi- 
nally given,  the  principle  would  not  be  so  glaringly  absurd. 
But  seeing  that  it  was  intended  for  all  men,  and  for  every 
age,  it  is  utterly  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was  accom- 
modated by  God  to  the  '*  local  ideas"  of  the  Jews.  And  how 
utterly  unphilosophical  is  the  position  upon  which  the  alleged 
necessity  for  the  adoption  of  such  a  principle  is  based,  has 
been  already  shown  to  some  extent.  But  the  following  pas- 
sage from  Professor  Stuart  presents  the  point  in  a  clear  and 
striking  light.  "  If  I  bring  along  with  me  (in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures,)  my  philosophical  creed,  or  my  party 
theological  creed,  or  my  rationalist  creed,  or  my  convictions 
as  an  enthusiast,  and  in  my  explanation  of  Scripture  permit 
either  of  these  to  influence  or  guide  me,  instead  of  the  plain 
principles  of  exegesis  which  nature  has  taught  all  men  in 
regard  to  the  interpretation  of  language ;  then  I  do  not  make 
an  explication  of  the  sacred  text,  but  an  implication,  (non 
explicatio  sed  implicatio,)  i.  e.,  I  do  not  unfold  to  others 
what  the  sacred  writers  meant  to  say,  and  have  actually 


128  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

said,  hut  what  I  believe  before  I  undertook  to  interpret 
them;  I  do  not  deduce  from  their  words  the  sense  which  the 
writers  gave  to  them  ;  but  I  superinduce  a  sense  which  these 
writers  never  designed  to  conyey.  This  is  not  to  bring  a 
sense  out  of  the  words  of  Scripture,  i.  e.,  it  is  not  explication, 
but  it  is  to  bring  in  one  upon  it,  or  to  add  one  to  it,  which 
is  implication  in  the  Latin  sense  of  this  word." 

3.  A  third  objection  is  taken  from  the  fact  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine  with  any  degree  of  certainty  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  of  God  according  to  this  principle.  No 
two  Rationalists  have  ever  agreed  in  their  explanations  of 
the  Bible  while  adhering  to  the  accommodation  theory.  An 
illustration  of  this  has  already  been  given  in  reference  to 
Peter  and  Ananias.  But  instead  of  lengthening  out  these 
remarks  by  a  citation  of  other  dull  instances,  we  shall  pre- 
sent the  authority  of  Hengstenberg,  which  will  be  uni- 
versally admitted  to  be  all-sufficient.  "  No  two  of  the  more 
important  critics  agree  in  their  mode  of  solving  the  most 
important  problems.  It  is  a  war  of  every  man  against 
every  man.  We  had  intended  to  present  to  our  readers  the 
laughable  spectacle  of  these  contests,  in  order  that  from  the 
conl'usion  and  contradiction  of  the  positive  results  of  the 
later  criticism,  which  is  consistent  with  itself  no  further 
than  its  champions  are  united  by  a  common  doctrinal  in- 
terest, they  might  form  some  conclusion  about  the  boasted 
certainty  of  their  negative  results.  But  we  feel  an  uncon- 
querable disgust  at  the  business,  and  we  cannot  bring  our- 
selves to  enter  upon  the  field  of  arbitrary  speculation,  and 
collect  together  the  masses  of  fancies  that  lie  scattered  there. 
Every  one  can  easily  supply  the  lack  by  taking  in  hand  a 
few  of  the  works  on  this  subject,  and  comparing  them. 
The  impression  made  by  such  a  labour  would  be  apt  to  re- 
semble that  which  one  gets  on  visiting  a  Jews'  school."* 
Hence, 

4.  Another  objection,  which  is  likewise  fatal  to  this  prin- 
ciple, is  that  no  certain  criteria  can  be  given  which  shall 
(if  this  principle  be  allowed)  enable  us  to  distinguish  be- 
tween those  declarations  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  which 
they  themselves  believed,  and  those  in  which  they  accom- 
modated themselves  to  the  erroneous  notions  of  the  Jews. 
The  Scriptures  no  where  (says  Storr)  make  a  distinction 

*  See  Prolegomena  to  his  Authentic  des  Pentateuchs,  Erster  Band. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  129 

between  what  is  universally  true,  and  what  is  only  local 
and  temporary.  And  hence  the  theory  of  accommodation, 
as  above  remarked,  involves  the  whole  of  revelation  in  un- 
certainty.    But  further, 

5.  It  is  utterly  destitute  of  proof.  Many  of  those  coin- 
cidences between  the  instructions  of  Christ  and  the  Jewish 
opinions,  which  have  commonly  been  referred  to  accommo- 
dation, cannot  be  proved  even  to  be  historically  true.  The 
Rabbinical  writings  which  are  appealed  to,  are  of  more 
recent  origin  than  the  age  of  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  and 
the  works  of  Philo  and  Josephus  do  not  uniformly  exhibit 
the  ideas  which  were  prevalent  among  the  Jews  in  Palestine. 
Moreover,  the  representations  contained  in  these  works,  and 
also  in  some  apocryphal  books,  differ  in  a  variety  of  respects 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament.  But  if  even  some 
of  the  instructions  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles  did  coincide  with 
the  popular  opinions  of  the  Jews,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
they  must  therefore  have  been  erroneous.  So  far  as  these 
Jewish  opinions  were  correct,  they  were  worthy  of  the  ap- 
probation of  Jesus.  And  the  providence  of  God  may,  by 
previous  intimations  of  them,  have  paved  the  way  for  the 
reception  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity.* 

6.  Then  further;  the  necessity  for  such  accommodation 
on  the  part  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  neither  has  been  nor 
can  be  proved.  This  point  has  often  been  asserted,  boldly 
and  roundly;  but  the  proof,  though  often  called  for,  has 
never  been  forthcoming. 

7.  The  moral  character  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  likewise 
renders  the  supposition  that  they  would  thus  countenance 
error,  utterly  inadmissible. 

8.  The  supposition  also,  if  received,  must  plainly  ruin  the 
character  of  our  Lord  as  a  safe  and  infallible  guide  to  truth. 
For  if  he  taught  any  thing  clearly  he  taught  clearly  the  doc- 
trines which  are  produced  as  examples  of  mere  accommoda- 
tion. Even  Professor  Bush  is  compelled  to  admit  this  in 
reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 

9.  The  supposition  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  propogated 
(as  this  theory  asserts)  falsehood  under  the  garb  of  truth,  is 

*  See  Storr  and  Flatt's  Theology ;  and  an  excellent  article  on  the 
subject  of  "Accommodation,"  in  the  Encyclop.  of  Rel.  Knowledge ; 
Dr.  Knapp  also,  in  his  Theology,  handsomely  "  uses  up"  the  same 
wretched  subterfuge  of  unbelief. 


ISO       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

destroyed  by  the  fact  that  they  proved  the  truth  of  their  doc- 
trine by  miracles. 

10.  And  finally,  this  theory  is  at  total  variance  with  every 
thing  recorded  of  our  Lord's  freedom  of  speech,  sincerity, 
and  fidelity.  Would  not  even  Professor  Bush  consider  it 
wrong  in  himself  to  countenance  errors  in  the  manner  in 
which  he  represents  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  to  have  done? 
His  whole  book  evinces  that  he  would  deem  it  disgraceful  for 
himself  to  do  so.  And  so  far  indeed  was  our  blessed  Lord 
from  accommodating  his  teachings  to  the  errors  of  the  age 
in  which  he  lived,  that,  as  Paley  remarks,  he  is  distinguished 
not  only  by  a  perfect  freedom  from  popular  errors  himself, 
unparalleled  by  any  other  teacher  of  any  nation  and  age; 
but  by  the  unshrinking  and  martyr  courage  with  which  he 
perpetually  confronts  and  answers  them.  Hence  on  one 
occasion,  when  informed  that  his  exposure  of  a  popular  error 
had  given  offence  to  the  leading  sect  among  his  countrymen, 
he  unfolded  the  great  maxim  of  his  ministry,  in  these  deci- 
sive words :  "  Every  plant  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath 
not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up."  Matt.  xv.  13. 

The  reader  can  now  judge  whether  Professor  Bush  ought 
to  have  had  "no  fear  of  being  convicted  before  an  enlightened 
tribunal,  of  having  periled  the  weal  of  the  sacred  oracles,  by 
the  advocacy  of  a  false  principle  of  interpretation,"  {Anas- 
tasis  p.  29.)  while  we,  having  proved  this  principle  of  Pro- 
fessor Bush's  hermeneutics  to  be  erroneous,  shall  proceed 
briefly  to  announce  the  principles  which  shall  regulate  our 
interpretation  of  Scripture  in  the  present  discussion. 

SECTION  V. 

True  Principles  of  Interpretation. 

To  the  question,  "  which  of  the  different  modes  of  inter- 
pretation that  are  followed,  and  which  of  the  hermeneutical 
theories  that  have  been  set  up,  is  the  right  one?"  Hahn,  in 
his  celebrated  essay  thus  replies,  "  That  the  right  interpre- 
tation is  that  one,  which  deduces  from  the  Holy  Scriptures 
the  very  sense  which  the  writers  of  them  intended  to  con- 
vey "  On  which  felicitous  definition.  Professor  Stuart  truly 
remarks,  "  From  this  simple  and  intelligible  statement  it 
follows,  that  all  accommodation  of  the  Scriptures  to  our  own 
preconceived  notions  of  truth  and  propriety,  unless  indeed 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  131 

these  entirely  agree  with  those  of  the  sacred  writers,  is 
foreign  to  the  business  of  true  interpretaton.  This  concerns 
itself  exclusively  and  solely  with  the  sentiment  of  the  writer 
to  be  interpreted.  All  the  principles  of  language  and  criti- 
cism which  it  applies  to  exegesis,  are  only  means  which 
common  sense  has  pointed  out,  as  necessary  and  proper  to 
be  used  in  the  explanation  of  any  written  or  spoken  lan- 
guage," Biblic.  Repos.  I.  139. 

The  meaning  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  speaks  in  the  Bible, 
therefore,  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  which  he  employs,  as 
educed  by  a  fair  and  grammatical  interpretation.  When  we 
have  clearly  and  grammatically  ascertained  this,  we  have 
ascertained  what  God  has  truly  announced  in  his  word. 
And  can  any  thing  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  this 
meaning  is  to  be  ascertained  by  a  primary  resort  to  the  de- 
ductions of  reason,  or  philosophy;  or  to  the  principle  of 
accommodation? 

Another,  and  very  obvious  principle  is,  that  every  writer 
best  explains  himself,  and  that  no  intelligent  writer,  will,  as 
such,  be  inconsistent  with  himself.  This  has  been  sometimes 
called  the  analogy  of  faith  ;  but  more  correctly  the  analogy 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Scriptura  Scripturm  interpres. 
This  is  a  canon  which  is  likewise  almost  perpetually  violated 
by  Professor  Bush.  He  sometimes,  it  is  true,  resorts  to  it; 
but  he  oftener  resorts  to  his  accommodation  principle,  or  to 
his  argument  from  reason,  and  his  axiomatic  application  of 
it,  "no  two  truths  in  the  universe  can  conflict  with  each 
other." 

Another  canon,  and  one  also  referred  to  by  Bacon*  is 
thus  slated  by  Hahn ;  "  Since  the  writings  of  whose  inter- 
pretation we  are  here  speaking,  are  holy  writings,  i.  e.,  com- 
posed by  men  of  holy  minds  and  lives;  and  since  they 
profess  to  contain  a  divine  revelation,  respecting  truth  and 
the  means  of  becoming  truly  good  and  happy;  we  must,  in 
order  to  be  or  to  become  capable  of  fully  understanding 
them,  come  to  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  a 
holy  feelings  or  with  a  heart  open  and  longing  for  all  that  is 
good  and  true  and  divine.  Then  will  the  true  sense  and 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures  reveal  themselves  to  us.  In  the 
contrary  case,  or  if  we  are  already  prejudiced  against  them, 
although  they  contain  the  word  of  God,  they  will  yet  address 
us  in  language  unintelligible  and  without  effect.     Indeed,  it 

*  See  De  Augment.  Scient.  Lib.  IX.  cap.  I. 


132       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

cannot  be  otherwise  even  considered  philological! y.  In  order 
to  understand  and  fully  to  enjoy  the  poets,  and,  consequently, 
in  order  to  explain  them,  a  poetical  feeling  is  requisite,  which 
shall  be  capable  of  following  out  the  vast  variety  of  the 
poet's  creations,  and  of  accompanying  the  flights  of  his  fancy. 
Whoever  will  understand  the  works  of  a  profound  philoso- 
pher, must  have  inclination  and  capacity  to  trace  the  course 
of  his  ideas,  and  penetrate  the  depths  of  his  investigations. 
In  like  manner,  there  is  every  where  required  for  the  under- 
standing of  a  writer  a  kindred  spirit,  qualified  by  prepara- 
tion. Just  so  a  holy  feeling  is  requisite  for  the  understanding 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  In  acknowledgment  of  this  truth, 
therefore,  our  old  interpreters  required,  in  an  entirely  cor- 
rect sense,  that  the  Scriptures  should  be  explained  in  or 
cum  spiritu  sancto,  and  that  no  one  should  enter  upon  the 
reading  of  them  without  prayer. 

"  This  theory  of  interpretation,  is  (1.)  in  its  principles  ap- 
plied to  all  writings  in  the  world ;  they  must  be  explained  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  language,  with  the  history  of 
their  time,  and  with  their  internal  connexion  and  spirit;  and 
(2.)  this  theory  alone  affords  a  certainty  of  rightly  under- 
standing a  work,  because  it  is  exercised  according  to  certain 
rules,  that  are  clear  and  of  easy  application.  This  holds 
good  of  no  other  mode  of  interpretation."  Thus  Hahn.  Com- 
pare also  the  Biblic.  Repos.  II.  135. 

We  might,  if  necessary,  fortify  these  statements  with  the 
authority  of  Ernesti.  See  Instit,  Interpretis  Nov,  Test, 
Part.  I.  Sect.  I.  Cap.  I. 


CHAPTER  II. 

A  CONSIDERATION  OF   THE  OLD   TESTAMENT   DOCTRINE   OF   THE  RESURREC- 
TION AS  PRESENTED  AND  DISCUSSED  BY  PROFESSOR  BUSH. 

The  Professor  commences  this  branch  of  the  discussion  with 
some  preliminary  remarks,  briefly  touching  the  principle  of 
interpretation  which  we  have  discussed  in  our  preceding 
chapter.  He  insists  that  the  "  Scriptures  are  constructed  on 
this  point  (the  subject  of  the  human  body  and  soul,)  in  refer- 
ence to  the  then  state  of  knowledge — to  the  popular  impres- 
sion and  belief — among  those  for  whom  they  were  originally 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  133 

designed^  pp.  90,  91.  That  is,  in  other  words,  they  are 
with  respect  to  "  physical  subjects  "  only  local  and  tempo- 
rary. And  he  also  insists  that  astronomy  and  geology  have 
compelled  us  to  deviate  from  the  literal  averments  of  holy 
writ  in  some  places;  and  that  therefore  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  results  of  physiological  investigation  ought 
to  be,  by  a  similar  process,  reconciled  with  the  announce- 
ments of  revelation. 

This,  as  the  reader  no  doubt  perceives,  is  but  a  second 
edition  of  the  Professor's  "  Knowledge  of  Revelation  pro- 
gressive;^^ and  I  may,  without  doing  it  any  injustice,  say 
that  it  is  only  an  English  abridgment  and  version  of  Bret- 
schneider's  "  Letter  to  a  Statesman"  There  is  in  fact  a 
remarkable  resemblance  between  them.  But  we  have  said 
so  much  already,  in  exposing  the  principle  of  accommoda- 
tion, and  the  argument  from  reason,  that,  though  the  matter 
is  repeatedly  presented  by  Professor  Bush,  at  almost  every 
step  of  his  progress  through  his  work,  we  cannot  venture  to 
tax  the  reader's  patience  with  a  second  refutation  of  it.  And 
shall  therefore  leave  it  with  the  remark,  1.  that  as  to  geology, 
its  clear  results  are  corroborative  of,  or  consistent  with  the 
Scriptures.  Nor  are  there  any  geological  facts  that  have 
ever  been  pointed  out,  which,  in  themselves^  contradict  the 
exact  ascertained  meaning  of  a  single  passage  in  the  word 
of  God.  And  2.  The  same  remark  may  be  made  respecting 
astronomy.*  Not  even  the  passage  in  Joshua,  (ch.  x.)  can 
be  shown  to  conflict  with  the  principles  of  the  Copernican 
system. 

*  In  order  to  enforce  what  the  Professor  advances  in  reference  to 
the  necessity  of  adapting  revelation  to  the  advance  of  scientific  dis- 
covery ;  and  to  teach  us  "  a  humiliating  lesson  on  the  force  of  blind 
prejudice  in  its  war  with  the  progress  of  science  "  he  gives  us  a  suc- 
cinct "  history  of  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Galileo ;"  a  "  case  " 
referred  to  by  Rationalists,  and  Unitarians,  and  Universalists,  and  all 
other  mere  theorists  so  frequently,  that  it  has  been  actually  worn 
threadbare.  They  are  all,  forsooth,  like  Galileo ;  and  of  course  all 
who  oppose  their  errors  must  resemble  Galileo's  persecutors.  This 
"  case  "  Professor  Bush  repeatedly,  and  most  invidiously  refers  to. 
See  Anastasis,  pp.  83,  84,.  87,  88,  89,  (note)  and  90.  But  "  It  has 
been  very  properly  remarked,"  says  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith,  (Scrip. 
Geology,  p.  217,)  "that  many  a  system-maker,  when  a  check  is  of. 
fered  to  his  crude  and  *  inconclusive  conceptions, — fancies  himself 
another  Galileo,  and  glories  in  his  imagined  martyrdom."  The 
reader  will  determine  for  himself  whether  there  is  any  very  striking 
resemblance  between  the  case  of  the  Professor  and  that  of  Galileo  I 

12 


134       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

But  in  contemplating  what  Professor  Bush  has  so  much 
insisted  on,  respecting  the  superseding  of  the  declarations  of 
the  Bible,  by  the  results  of  scientific  investigation,  I  have 
been  exceedingly  grieved  at  their  latitudinarian  nature  and 
tendency.  And  as  he,  in  his  remarks,  preliminary  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  scripture  argument,  condenses  these  views 
of  his  into  a  moral  focus,  in  the  following  paragraph,  I  shall, 
before  passing  on,  extract  it,  not  for  the  purpose  of  remark- 
ing upon  it,  (for  the  sentiment  has  been  sufficiently  exposed 
already,)  but  to  show,  by  contrasting  it  with  a  passage  from 
another  writer,  and  one  with  whose  theological  system  Pro- 
fessor Bush  has  had  no  sympathy  whatever,  how  much 
reason  there  is  to  suspect  the  soundness  of  the  principles 
which  he  has  so  confidently  advanced.  The  following  is  the 
passage  from  Professor  Bush;  a  part  of  which  we  have 
quoted  already. 

"  What  now  is  the  obvious  matter  of  fact  as  regards  the 
particular  subject  of  our  present  discussion?  Are  not  the 
Scriptures  constructed  on  this  point,  as  on  all  others  having 
respect  to  physical  subjects,  in  reference  to  the  then  state  of 
knowledge — to  the  popular  impression  and  belief — among 
those  for  whom  they  were  originally  designed?  And  did 
the  Jews  and  the  early  Christians  know  what  we  know  in 
relation  to  our  physical  organization?  Was  the  science  of 
animal  chemistry  developed  in  those  early  ages?  Were 
they  skilled  in  anthropology  ?  Did  they  know  any  more  of 
the  settled  truths  embraced  in  this  sphere  of  knowledge  than 
of  those  which  fall  into  the  department  of  astronomy  or 
geology  ?  It  avails  nothing  to  say  that  the  Spirit  which  in- 
dited the  Scriptures  knew  these  truths,  if  the  writers  did  not. 
The  Spirit  knew  too,  equally  well,  the  true  structure  of  the 
solar  system  and  the  age  of  the  globe  upon  which  we  dwell. 
Yet  he  has  not  seen  fit  to  speak  according  to  his  knowledge 
on  those  points,  and  why  should  he  any  more  on  this  ?  If 
there  are  actually  stages  in  the  progress  of  human  intelli- 
gence ;  if  the  collective  mind  of  the  race,  like  that  of  an 
individual,  passes  through  the  grades  of  infancy,  childhood, 
youth,  and  maturity ;  must  not  a  revelation  from  God,  vouch- 
safed to  the  earlier  generations  of  men,  adapt  itself  to  their 
existing  intellectual  state?  Can  a  child  comprehend  the 
deep  things  of  a  man?  Who  then  will  suppose  that  the 
obvious  sense  of  the  letter,  on  subjects  that  admit  of  con- 
tinually growing  light  from  subsequent  discoveries,  was  in- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  135 

tended  as  a  fixed  standard  of  import  from  which  no  depar- 
ture was  to  be  allowed  1  Would  not  this  be  like  requiring 
the  man  to  continue  to  wear  the  garments  of  the  boy  ?"  pp. 
90,  91. 

Dr.  William  Ellery  Channing,  in  discussing  the  evidences 
of  Christianity,  takes  occasion  to  refer  to  the  same  subject — 
but  what  an  inverted  contrast  between  the  "  orthodox  "  and 
the  "  liberal "  divine !  He  speaks  as  follows :  "  Passing  over 
these  topics,  each  of  which  might  be  enlarged  into  a  dis- 
course, I  will  make  but  one  remark  on  this  religion,  which 
strikes  my  own  mind  very  forcibly.  Since  its  introduction, 
human  nature  has  made  great  progress,  and  society  expe- 
rienced great  changes ;  and  in  this  advanced  condition  of 
the  world,  Christianity,  instead  of  losing  its  application 
and  importance,  is  found  to  be  more  and  more  conge- 
nial AND  ADAPTED    TO    MAN's    NATURE   AND  WANTS.       Men 

have  outgrown  the  other  institutions  of  that  period  when 
Christianity  appeared,  its  philosophy,  its  modes  of  warfare, 
its  policy,  its  public  and  private  economy ;  hut  Christianity 
has  never  shrunk  as  intellect  has  opened,  but  has  always 
kept  in  advance  of  men's  faculties,  and  unfolded  nobler 
views  in  proportion  as  they  have  ascended.  The  highest 
powers  and  affections,  which  our  nature  has  developed,  find 
more  than  adequate  objects  in  this  religion.  Christianity- 
is  indeed  peculiarly  fitted  to  the  more  improved  stages  of 
society,  to  the  more  delicate  sensibilities  of  refined  minds, 
and  especially  to  that  dissatisfaction  with  the  present  state, 
which  always  groM's  with  the  growth  of  our  moral  powers 
and  affections.  As  men  advance  in  civilization,  they  become 
susceptible  of  mental  sufferings,  to  which  ruder  ages  are 
strangers;  and  these  Christianity  is  fitted  to  assuage.  Ima- 
gination and  intellect  become  more  restless;  and  Christianity 
brings  them  tranquillity  by  the  eternal  and  magnificent  truths, 
the  solemn  and  unbounded  prospects  which  it  unfolds.  This 
fitness  of  our  religion  to  the  more  advanced  stages  of  society 
than  that  in  which  it  teas  introduced,  to  wants  of  human 
nature  not  then  developed,  seems  to  me  very  striking.  The 
religion  bears  the  marks  of  having  comeyirom  a  Being  who 
perfectly  understood  the  human  mind,  and  had  power  to 
provide  for  its  progress.  This  feature  of  Christianity  is 
of  the  nature  of  prophecy.  It  was  an  anticipation  of  future 
and  distant  ages;  and  when  we  consider  among  u'hom  our 


136       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

religion  sprung^  ivhere,  but  in  God,  can  we  find  an  ex- 
planation  of  this  peculiarity. ""* 

This  admirable  passage  is  worthy  of  the  exalted  literary 
reputation  of  its  author,  and  of  the  sacred  cause  which  he 
defends.  And  shall  we  be  told  by  a  learned  orthodox  di- 
vine, that  such  is  not  the  characteristic  of  the  Bible?  and 
that  the  argument  is  fallacious?  One  might  reasonably 
enough  suppose  that  it  would  be  sufficient  for  an  avowed 
sceptic  to  make  such  a  declaration. 

In  respect  to  the  "  Definition  of  terms,"  which  Professor 
Bush  considers  in  Chap.  iii.  Part  II.,  he  concedes,  so  far  as  the 
Old  Testament  argument  is  concerned,  all  that  I  desire.  He 
remarks,  however,  that  "as  the  drift  of  our  expositions  will 
go  to  show  that  the  intimations  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  are  at  last  extremely 
dubious,  so  the  occurrence  of  corresponding  terms  by  which 
to  express  it,  is  in  proportion  but  little  to  be  looked  for," 
p.  94.  Yet  he  does  not  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  following  pas- 
sage (p.  92,)  containing  an  excellent  criticism  on  2  Tim.  i.  10, 
clearly  evinces.  "  The  emphatic  declaration  of  the  apostle, 
that  Christ,  through  the  gospel,  *  hath  brought  life  and  im- 
mortality to  light,'  is  evidently  not  to  be  undei^tood  as  car- 
rying with  it  the  implication  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life, 
and  of  a  resurrection  of  some  kind,  is  not  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  The  genuine  import  of  the  ori- 
ginal term  <femi^i{v,  conveys  the  idea  rather  of  shedding  addi- 
tional light  upon  an  obscure  subject,  than  that  of  annovn- 
cing,  declaring^  or  disclosing  it  de  novo;  and  this  is  con- 
firmed by  the  words  of  the  Saviour  himself,  Matt.  xxii.  29: 
'  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures  nor  the  power  of 
God  ;'  from  which  it  is  evident,  that  had  they  rightly  scanned 
the  purport  of  their  own  Scriptures,  they  would  have  recog- 
nized the  indubitable  traces  of  this  grand  doctrine."  The 
Professor  might  have  added,  also,  that  both  Christ  and  his 
apostles  affirm  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  Christ  takes  the  point 
for  granted  in  his  dispute  with  the  Sadducees,  Matt.  xxii.  31. 
Peter  declares  that  David  announced  the  resurrection  of  the 
Messiah,  Acts  ii.  31:  and  Paul  assui'es  us  that  this  same 

*  Channing*s  Discourse  on  the  Evidences  of  Revealed  Religion,  pp. 
28, 29,  edit.  3d.     Unitarian  Tracts,  Vol.  1.  pp.  270,  271, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  137 

doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament, 
(see  Acts  xxiv.  14,  15,)  and  also  that  the  faithful  servants 
of  God  nientioned  in  Hebrews  xi.,  would  not  receive  the 
offered  deliverance  from  the  sufferings  which  they  endured 
for  the  sake  of  the  truth,  that  they  might  obtain  the  better 
resurrection* 

I.  The  first  passage  which  he  enters  upon  the  discussion 
of,  is  Gen.  xvii.  7,  8. 

"  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant;  to 
be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 

"  And  t  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land 
wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting 
possession ;  and  I  will  be  their  God." 

His  observations  on  this  passage  are  brief,  and  begin 
thus :  "  Upon  this  Menasseh  Ben  Israel  remarks,  '  It  is 
plain  that  Abraham  and  the  rest  of  the  Patriarchs  did  not 
possess  that  land;  it  follows  therefore,  that  they  must  be 
raised  in  order  to  enjoy  the  promised  good,  or  otherwise  the 
promises  of  God  would  be  vain  and  false.  Hence,  therefore, 
is  proved  not  only  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  also  the 
essential  foundation  of  the  law,  to  wit :  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead."  He  also  remarks  that  Mede,  and  the  generality 
of  Millenarian  writers  give  it  the  same  construction. 

I  have  not  been  accustomed  to  rely  upon  this  passage  as  a 
proof  of  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  though  I  think  the 
Jewish  exposition  of  it,  backed  as  it  is,  by  high  Christian 
authority,  deserving  of  some  attention.  But  how  does  Pro- 
fessor Bush  attempt  to  set  aside  the  argument  which  has 
been  deduced  from  it?  Why  as  follows:  *'In  reply,  we 
observe,  (1.)  if  our  previous  train  of  reasoning  be  sound,  the 
drift-  of  which  is  to  evince  that  the  future  resurrection  of  the 
same  body  is  intrinsically  inconceivable  and  incredible,  it 
follows  that  the  bodies  of  Abraham  and  the  patriarchs  are  no 
more  to  be  raised  than  any  other  bodies,  whatever  may  be 

*  "  The  first  resurrection,'''  as  it  is  termed  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  which  appefirs  to  be  the  subject  of  1  Cor.  xv.  See  also  Rev.  xx. ; 
Daniel  xii.  2;  Phil.  iii.  11;  and  Luke  xx.  36.  Nor  is  it  any  v^lid 
objection  to  the  criticism  that  neiirrayof;  avsundiriiiec  is  destitute  of  the 
article.  See  Winer's  Idioms  of  the  New  Testament.  Part  III.  §§  18 
and  19 ;  and  Biblic.  Repos.  IV.  p.  296  seq. 

12* 


138  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  (BODY 

the  language  of  the  letter.  What  is  denied  of  the  race  in 
^0^0,  must  be  denied  of  the  individuals  in  parte.''''  p.  97. 

Here,  then,  we  have  an  illustration  of  the  manner  in 
which  Professor  Bush  applies  his  "  argument  from  reason." 
Reason  first  tells  what  the  Bible  ought  to  reveal !  and  if  God 
declares  any  thing  which  is  not  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  Professor's  philosophy,  his  declaration  must  be  rejected, 
or  at  least  modified  until  it  does  harmonize  therewith.  But 
we  have  shown  that  Professor  Bush's  previous  train  of  rea- 
soning is  not  sound,  and  hence  this  application  of  it  is  of  no 
weight  whatever. 

His  other  "reply,"  is  not  more  successful.  It  .is  as  fol- 
lows. "(*'^.)  The  admitted  principles  of  philology  are  di- 
rectly against  the  proposed  (the  universally  acknowledged, 
he  should  have  said,)  rendering.  By  both  the  Greek  and. 
Hebrew  Usage,  the  particle  '  and'  is  very  often  synonymous 
with  'even,'  and  should  so  be  rendered,  i.  e.,  as  exegetical 
of  what  goes  before.  Thus,  1  Chronicles  xxi.  12,  'The 
Lord's  sword  and  the  pestilence,'  i.  e.,  even  the  pestilence." 
And  after  also  quoting  Numbers  xxxi.  6,  Ephesians  iv.  11, 
and  Matthew  xxi.  5,  he  adds,  "and  so  in  numerous  other 
instances.  Here  therefore,  the  meaning  undoubtedly  is, 
'  Unto  thee,  even  to  thy  seed  afler  thee  will  I  give  it.'  This 
is  all  that  is  fairly  included  in  the  promise,  the  immediate 
object  of  which  is  not  a  heavenly  but  an  earthly  Canaan.''"' 
pp.  97,  98.. 

This  is  a  specimen  of  strange  exegesis.  How  does  the 
fact,  that  1  is  explanatory  in  the  instances  produced,  prove 
that  it  is  to  be  so  taken  in  the  instance  under  consideration  ? 
It  is  neither  a  case  of  explanatory  apposition,  nor  of  h  JVd  JVoiy, 
in  which  such  a  construction  is  admissible.  And  what 
"  admitted  principles  of  philology  are  against  the  rendering" 
given  to  it  in  our  common  version?  Does  the  fact  that  i  is 
sometimes  so  translated,  prove  it  ?  If  so  where  is  the  con- 
nexion between  the  premises  and  conclusion  ?  How  would 
the  argument  apply  to  other  cases.  Take,  e.  g.  Genesis 
i.  1,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  even  i\.<i 
earth."  Isaiah  vi.  9,  "  By  hearing  you  shall  hear  even  not 
understand."  What  would  Professor  Bush's  argument  be 
worth,  if  applied  to  prove  that  even  is  the  proper  render- 
ing here?  And  yet  it  is  just  as  good  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  139 

The  Professor,  to  sustain  this  rendering,  goes  back  to 
Genesis  xv.  18,  "  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land.^^  But 
why  did  he  not  quote  also  verse  7,  "  1  brought  thee  out  of 
Ur,  to  give  thee  this  land  to  inherit  it^  Professor  Bush 
could  not  but  know  that  as  both  Abraham  and  his  seed  are 
distinctly  and  separately  thus  specified  in  chapter  xv.,  so  in 
chapter  xvii.  they  are  specifically  enumerated  in  the  verses 
under  discussion ;  as  without  such  a  distinct  specification, 
the  promise,  as  here  repeated,  would  not  have  been  strictly 
the  same  as  that  previously  given. 

But  instead  of  reverting  to  chapter  xv.,  why  did  not  Pro- 
fessor Bush  go  for  illustration  to  the  parallel  phrases  in  the 
very  chapter  from  which  he  makes  his  quotation ; — or  in 
attempting  to  explain  "  and"  by  "  even,"  in  verse  8,  why 
did  he  not  cast  his  eye  on  verse  7,  which  he  has  also 
quoted  1  If  i  m^ans  "  erera"  in  one  of  these  phrases,  "  ih.e 
admitted  principles  of  philology"  require  that  it  should  mean 
the  same  thing  in  every  parallel  phrase  in  the  connexion. 
How  would  verse  7  read,  then  ?  "  I  will  establish  my  cove- 
nant between  me  even  thee,  even  thy  seed  after  thee — to  be 
a  God  unto  thee,  even  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  Was  God 
therefore  the  God  only  of  Abraham's  seed,  and  not  of 
Abraham  himself,  as  this  construction  would  require?  If 
not,  how  does  the  same  declaration  respecting  Canaan,  prove 
it  to  be  the  possession  only  of  Abraham's  seed,  and  not  of 
Abraham  himself?  So  too,  in  verses  9  and  10.  "Thou 
shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou,  even  thy  seed  after 
thee  in  their  generations.  This  is  my  covenant,  which 
ye  shall  keep,  between  me  even  you,  even  thy  seed  after 
thee."  Was  the  covenant,  then,  only  between  God  and 
Abraham's  seed?  And  did  not  Abraham  keep  it?  (v.  11 
— 14,  and  22—27.)  Was  he  not  included  therein?  If  these 
passages  prove  that  he  was,  then  verse  8  proves  that  he  was 
also  included  with  his  seed  in  the  promise  of  the  land  of 
Ganaan. 

But  Pcofessor  Bush  not  only  forgot  to  look  at  the  parallel 
passages  in  the  same  chapter,  but  he  omitted  also  to  consult 
the  inspired  explanation  of  this  text,  as  given  by  Stephen,  in 
Acts  vii.  4,  5.  "  Then  came  he  out  of  the  land  of  the  Chal- 
deans, and  dwelt  in  Charran ;  and  from  thence,  when  his 
father  was  dead,  he  removed  him  into  this  land,  wherein 
ye  now  dwell.  And  he  gave  him  none  inheritance  in  it,  nOy 
not  so  much  as  to  set  his  foot  on ;  («««f«  /2»i«*  ■^o'^o )  yet  he 


140  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

promised  that  he  would  give  it  to  him  for  a  possession^  and 
to  his  seed  after  him,  (««'  tZ  a-Tri^fAXTt  a6tov  fxtr'  cthrov,)  when 
as  yet  he  had  no  child."     Comment  here  would  be  useless. 

II.  The  next  passage  adduced,  is  Job  xix.  25 — 27.  "  For 
I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,"  &c.  p.  99.  Of  this  he 
presents  the  Hebrew  text,  and  the  versions  of  the  LXX.  and 
Vulgate,  and  takes  occasion  to  remark  that  "it  would,  per- 
haps, be  impossible  to  cite  any  paragraph  in  the  whole  com- 
pass of  revelation  marked  by  greater  variety  of  construction 
than  the  present."  pp.  99,  100.  This  may  be  so;  but  it  no 
more  proves  the  import  of  the  passage  to  be  uncertain,  than 
the  myriads  of  diverse  readings  (in  the  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament,)  presented  by  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  &c. 
would  prove,  as  sceptics  ^assert,  the  meaning  of  the  New 
Testament  to  be  uncertain.  For  in  both  cases,  many  of  the 
distinctions  referred  to,  are  without  a  difference. 

But  in  considering  this  celebrated  passage  there  are  two 
points  which  must  not  be  lost  sight  of,  and  to  which  we  shall 
briefly  advert.  And  frst,  mere  authority  cannot  be  appealed 
to,  even  in  the  present  advanced  state  of  Hebrew  literature, 
for  settling  the  question  as  to  the  true  import  of  the  passage ; 
and  secondly,  the  objections  to  the  reception  of  the  common 
rendering,  resolve  themselves  substantially  into  this,  to  wit: 
the  passage  is  susceptible  of  a  different  exposition,  without 
violence  to  the  original.  Let  us  consider  each  of  these  sepa- 
rately. 

1.  As  to  the  question  of  authority.  Professor  Bush  pleads 
it  strongly;  and  appeals  to  the  late  work  of  Mr.  Barnes  on 
Job,  to  sustain  him  in  rejecting  the  common  interpretation. 
But  the  point  cannot  be  determined  in  this  way.  I  was  in 
hopes  that  the  Professor  would  have  furnished  us  with  his 
own  version  of  the  passage,  but  he  has  not  done  so.  We 
shall  therefore  look  at  the  passage  itself  with  reference  to 
this  question  of  authority. 

He  has  not  noticed  that  there  are  the  two  following  dis- 
tinct points  of  inquiry  as  to  its  import.  1 .  Does  Job  here 
confess  his  faith  in  the  Redeemer?  and  2.  Does  he  announce 
his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection?  Professor 
Bush  and  Mr.  Barnes  deny  that  he  does  either;  while  others 
maintain  the  first  point,  and  not  the  last.  The  following  is 
the  passage  with  the  rendering  of  the  venerable  and  learned 
Dr.  Hales. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  141 

jnnxi  >r.  ">'?nj  >nyn^  -"JNi    "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  (is)  living, 

:  Dip**  nDj7"?;;     And  that  .-it  the  last  {c/a?j) 
nHDQfH      mj;      "inN^     He  will  SiTise  {in  judgment)  upon  dust  (7nan- 

.    '  mSx  ninx  ntraci        kind.) 
INI  ">J'';ti  iS-ntnN  -"JN  "itTN     And  after  my  skin  be  mangled  thus, 
'•  ""pn^  ■'IT'Sj  "iSd  ni'x'?!     Yet  even  from  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God  • 
Whom  1  shall  see  for  me  (on  my  side,) 
And  my  eyes  shall  behold  him  not  estranged; 
( Though)  my  reins  be  {now)  consumed  with- 
in me."* 

With  the  single  exception  to  the  paraphrastic  rendering 
of  the  third  clause,  and  the  fanciful  construction  of  ney'?? 
this  translation  in  substance  receives  the  sanction  of  many  of 
the  most  learned  critics.  There  may  be  shades  of  difference 
in  their  rendering  of  a  word;  but  they  understand  Job  here 
to  declare  his  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  his  expectation  of 
a  resurrection.  Witsivs  (CEcon.  Feed.  Lib.  III.  c.  11.)  has 
ably  discussed  it  and  maintains  the  common  construction. 
So  Calvin  also,  whose  merits  as  an  interpreter  few  will  ven- 
ture to  question.  (See  Instit.  lib.  11.  cap.  10,  §  19.  and  lib. 
III.  cap.  25,  §  4.)  Lightfoot  also  is  very  positive  as  to  its 
import.  (Works,  Vol.  II.  791.  Folio.)  Parevs  (a  learned 
commentator  appealed  to  sometimes  by  Professor  Bush,) 
after  remarking  that  interpreters  vary  in  their  version  of 
some  of  the  words  of  the  passage,  observes,  that  "  neverthe- 
less in  this  sentiment  they  all  agree,  that  here  is  a  very- 
clear  confession  of  a  sure  and  firm  expectation  of  future  de- 
livercince  from  all  sorrow  in  another  life  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead:  and  concerning  Christ,  by  whose  power 
the  dead  should  arise."  (Comment,  in  loco})  So  also  Pis- 
cator  in  loco;  and  Junius  and  Tremellivs  in  their  excellent 
notes  in  loco.  The  same  view  is  taken  also  by  the  cele- 
brated Pfeiffer  (0pp.  Tom.  I.  p.  169 — )  and  by  the  elder 
Schultens,  and  by  the  older  critics  without  number ;  so  much 
so  that  Poole  (Annot.  in  loco)  who  had  closely  examined  the 
subject,  remarks,  that  most  of  the  interpreters,  "  both  ancient 
and  modern  understand  it  of  Christ  and  of  his  resurrection, 
and  of  Job's  resurrection  to  life  by  his  power  and  favour." 

Since  the  time  of  Poole  also,  the  argument  from  authority 
is  equally  strong.  Michaelis  and  Ramhach  with  Velthusen, 
advocate  it  strenuously.  And  Dr.  Priestly,  notwithstanding 
the  criticism  of  G'rotius  (who  is  the  father  of  the  new  inter- 


*  Hales'  Analysis,  Vol.  II.  pp.  83—86. 


142  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

pretation,)  hesitates  not  to  remark  that  "  Christians  in  general, 
from  the  earliest  times,  maintain  that  Job  (here)  declares  his 
faith  in  a  happy  resurrection  at  the  last  day;  and  this,  1 
have  no  doubt,  is  the  right  constrvction."  "  His  wishing 
so  often  for  death  as  the  end  of  all  his  troubles,  shoivs  that 
he  had  no  expectation  of  a  temporal  deliverance.^''  Rosen- 
mneller  likewise,  (who  will  not  be  accused  of  any  partiality 
for  the  orthodox  system,)  remarks,  that  it  refers  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  and  the  last  judgment.  "  Earn  oportet 
de  venturo  Judicio,  corporum  resurrectione  idtima,  et  rerum 
omnium  instauratione  cogitasse."  Dr.  Good  also  sustains 
the  view  of  Dr.  Hales.  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith  in  his  "  Scrip- 
ture Testimony  to  the  Messiah,"  (Vol.  I.  pp.  191 — 211,) 
presents  the  same  view,  and  translates  the  passage  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  I  hereby  do  know  my  Redeemer,  the  Living  One ; 
And  He,  the  last,  will  arise  over  the  dust. 
And,  after  the  disease  has  cut  down  my  skin, 
Even  from  my  flesh  sliall  I  see  God, 
Whom  I  shall  see  on  my  behalf; 
And  mine  eyes  shall  behold  him,  and  not  estranged.* 

Home,  also  takes  this  view  of  it,  and  asserts  that  it  is  the 
one  which  "  i^  now  generally  received.''''  See  Crit.  Introd. 
Vol.  II.  p.  237;  see  also,  Carpzov's  Critica  Sacra,  p.  744. 
If  there  is  any  weight  therefore,  in  the  argument  from 
authority,  it  is  plain  that  Professor  Bush  should  at  once  give 
up  the  controversy.     But  if  there  is  not,  why  does  he  try  to 

*  In  order  to  show  how  little  those  who  dissent  from  the  common 
view  of  this  passage,  have  ventured  to  depart  from  the  rendering 
given  it  in  the  text,  we  shall  quote  one  or  two  of  their  translations. 
Grotius  thus  renders  it :  "  Scio  ego  Redemtorem  meura  vivere,  et 
ilium  postrem6  staturum  in  campo.  Etiamsi  non  pellem  tantum 
raeam,  sed  et  hoc  (nenipe  arvinam  quse  sub  pelle  est)  consumerent 
(morbi  scilicet),  in  carne  tamen  mea  Deum  videbo  (id  est,  propitiuni 
experiar) ;  ego,  inquara,  hisce  meis  oculis  ;  ego  non  autem  alius  pro 
me."  See  his  Comment  in  loco.  The  venerable  Dr.  Knapp,  who 
also  departed  from  the  common  view,  thus  renders  it :  "I  know  that 
my  Redeemer  lives.  And  ere  long,  he,  who  now  lies  in  the  dust, 
will  arise,  {he  who  is  deeply  bowed  down  by  sickness  and  pain  tcill 
recover;)  although  my  skin  is  consumed,  I  shall  yet  in  this  body  see 
God,  (i.  e.,  have  in  him  a  irracious  God,  be  blessed  and  restored  by 
him ;)  as  a  friend  shall  I  see  him,  and  no  more  as  an  adversary." 
Christian  Theology,  Section  141,  p.  465.  But  is  "  ere  long''  an  wn- 
/orcec?  rendering  of  |nn«? 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  143 

make  the  impression  that  authority  is  against  the  commcn 
rendering  ? 

2.  But  secondly^  the  objections  against  the  common  ren- 
dering, seem  to  me  to  be  based  substantially  on  the  fact  that 
the  passage  may  be  explained  differently  from  what  it  has 
been.  Such  is  the  foundation  at  least,  of  the  presumption 
that  it  ought  to  be  differently  rendered ;  for  the  arguments 
offered  to  establish  the  statement,  have  no  very  great  weight. 
We  shall  first  attend  to  the  exceptions  of  Professor  Bush. 

He  narrows  down  the  controversy  to  a  single  point.  The 
propriety  of  referring  this  passage  to  the  resurrection,  says 
he,  "  obviously  depends  upon  the  soundness  of  the  interpre- 
tation, which  makes  the  language  of  Job  a  prediction  of  the 
Messiah."  p^  100.  Hence,  therefore,  if  it  be  a  prediction  of 
the  Saviour,  according  to  this  view,  it  must  also  assert  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  The  connexion  here,  between 
the  premises  and  conclusion  is  not  very  obvious,  and  there- 
fore, I  could  wish  the  Professor  had  presented  us  with  his 
own  translation  of  the  passage.  But  let  us  see  his  reasons 
for  refusing  to  recognize  it  as  a  prophecy  of  the  Redeemer. 
They  are  as  follows ; 

(1.)  "  The  book  of  Job  was  not  written  by  a  Jew  nor  in 
the  country  of  the  Jews,  and  therefore  not  by  one  who  was 
among  the  inheritors  of  the  promise  of  the  Messiah,  or  who 
is  to  be  supposed  a  priori  to  have  had  any  knowledge  of  a 
Messiah.  Nor  is  there  any  other  passage  in  the  whole  book 
importing  that  Job  knew  any  thing  of  such  a  promised  per- 
sonage as  the  Jews  understood  by  their  Messiah.  The  book 
is  not  in  its  genius  a  Messianic  book,  but  one  purely  theistic; 
and  we  are  not  at  liberty,  from  the  simple  occurrence  of  the 
title  '  Redeemer,'  which  we  shall  soon  show  to  be  more  cor- 
rectly translated  by  another  term,  to  assign  to  the  book  a 
character  which  it  has  no  adequate  evidence  of  possessing." 
p.  100. 

There  is  something  here  very  much  like  an  equivocation 
on  the  name  Messiah.  If  the  Professor  means  that  Job  did 
not  know  the  promised  Redeemer  of  men  by  the  name  Mes- 
siah, I  admit  it.  But  what  then?  Did  Abraham,  or  Jacob, 
or  Moses  know  him  by  this  name  ?  And  did  they,  therefore, 
know  nothing  of  such  a  Deliverer  as  was  promised  to  the 
Jews  1  But  this,  surely,  is  not  Professor  Bush's  meaning. 
Yet  there  is  but  one  thing  more  that  his  language  can 
mean,  to  wit:  that  Job  had  no  knowledge  of  man's  pro- 


144  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

mised  Redeemer.  And,  hence,  in  the  second  objection,  he 
denies  (as  we  shall  see,)  that  he  had  any  faith  in  the 
expected  Saviour.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  Professor  Bush, 
1  scruple  not  to  say,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  groundless 
and  unwarrantable  assertions  that  he  ever  uttered.  Does  he 
think,  then,  that  there  can  be  true  "  righteousness"  (such  as 
Job  is  said  to  have  possessed  ;  see  chap.  i.  1 ;  and  ii.  3,) 
without  true  faith  ?  This  is  a  theological  point,  and  not  to  be 
discussed  here,  but  if  it  be  ihe  view  of  Professor  Bush,  it 
should  be  seriously  reconsidered.  Compare  also  the  strong 
declarations  in  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  respecting  the  righteous- 
ness of  Job,  where  it  is  represented  to  be  the  same  as  that 
of  Noah  and  Daniel,  and  let  Professor  Bush  say  whether  he 
considers  it  a  "  righteousness  by  works."  And  again.  Job 
constantly  offered  sacrifice,  (see  chap.  i.  and  ii.  and  xlii.)  Is 
it  credible,  then,  that  he,  living  in  an  early  age  of  the  world, 
and  possessing  all  the  knowledge  of  God  which  his  conver- 
sation  and  actions  exhibit,  knew  not  the  design  of  sacrifice  ? 
If  he  did  know  this,  (and  I  think  that  Professor  Bush  will 
hardly  maintain  that  his  sacrifices,  acceptable  as  they  evi- 
dently were,  were  offered  in  ignorance,)  then  he  kneio  of 
man^s  promised  Deliverer.  And  then,  further,  had  not  all 
nations  preserved  some  tradition  of  a  promised  Saviour  ? 
Upon  what  principle,  therefore,  are  we  to  deny  this  know- 
ledge to  Job  7  Why  should  he  not  have  heard  of  the  promise 
made  to  our  first  parents  after  the  fall,  living,  as  he  evi- 
dently did,  in  the  time  of  the  patriarchs?  How  vain,  there- 
fore, is  the  assertion  of  Professor  Bush  in  the  above  extract, 
that  there  is  no  other  passage  in  the  whole  book,  importing 
that  Job  knew  any  thing  of  such  a  personage  I  His  cha- 
racter for  "  righteousness"  refutes  the  assertion  ;  it  is  refuted 
by  its  sheer  improbability,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with 
the  traditionary  knowledge  of  this  truth,  and  the  time  in 
which  he  must  have  lived  ;  and  it  is  refuted  by  every  sacri- 
fice that  Job  ever  offered. 

Such  is  the  preponderanceof  presumptive  argument,  which 
arrays  itself  against  the  very  point  on  which  Professor  Bush 
admits  that  the  whole  controversy  turns.  His  second  ex- 
ception is  as  follows : 

"  (2.)  Had  the  present  passage  really  contained  such  an 
explicit  declaration  of  Job's  faith  in  a  coming  Messiah  as  is 
generally  supposed,  it  is  certain  that  he  would  have  been 
entitled  to  a  conspicuous  place  in  that  roll  of  ancient  wor- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  145 

thies,  recited  in  the  eleventh  of  Hebrews,  who  "  have  by 
faith  obtained  an  excellent  report."  But  no  mention  of  him 
occurs  in  that  catalogue,  nor  is  he  ever  cited  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  an  example  o^  faith ^  but  simply  as  a  pattern  of 
patience,'''' 

The  Professor,  doubtless,  intended  this  for  argument ;  and 
if  the  principle  be  sound,  it  is  certainly  susceptible  of  a  more 
extensive  application  than  that  which  he  has  here  given. 
Suppose  we  apply  it  therefore  to  Daniel,  who  expressed 
a  strong  faith  in  the  expected  Shiloh,  or  to  Zechariah,  or 
Isaiah,  and  infer  that  they  had  no  failh  in  the  Redeemer, 
because  they  are  not  enumerated  in  Hebrews  xi.,  and  what 
would  he  think  of  the  conclusion?  But  we  have  shown  it  to 
be  absolutely  incredible  that  Job  had  no  failh  in  the  coming 
Saviour ;  and  the  fact  that  he  has  no  "  conspicuous  place  in 
that  roll  of  ancient  worthies"  proves  nothing  at  all.  The 
Professor's  last  exception  is  as  follows : 

"  (3.)  Were  the  words  before  us  to  be  justly  regarded  as 
expressive  of  his  belief  in  the  promised  Redeemer  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  it  would  have  given  him  a  just  claim  to 
the  character  of  a  prophet,  as  well  as  a  believer;  yet  we 
find  no  intimation  of  his  ever  being  deemed  to  possess  that 
character,  nor  is  this  passage  ever  once  alluded  to  by  the 
apostles  in  their  controversies  with  the  Jews  in  regard  to  the 
Old  Testament  predictions  of  Christ." 

This  canon  is  as  unfounded  as  the  preceding.  Where  is 
the  remarkable  prophecy  of  Jacob,  in  Genesis  xlix.  men- 
tioned by  the  apostles,  and  employed  in  their  controversies 
with  the  Jews  ? 

But  in  what  way  could  the  apostles  have  applied  this  pas- 
sage of  Job,  "  in  their  controversies  with  the  Jews  in  regard 
to  the  Old  Testament  predictions  of  Christ?"  I  wish  Pro- 
fessor Bush  had  told  us,  for  it  is  very  hard  even  to  imagine 
how  it  could  have  been  thus  used.  What  did  the  Jews  deny 
in  the  time  of  Christ,  that  could  possibly  come  into  conflict 
with  the  common  version  of  this  passage  ?  Did  they  deny 
a  future  judgment,  or  the  resurrection,  or  the  coming  of  a 
Redeemer?  If  not,  how  could  the  apostles  have  used  it  in 
their  controversies? 

Such  are  the  **  reasons^''  which  constrain  Professor  Bush 
**  to  dissent  from  any  view  which  recognizes  these  words  of 
Job  as  referring  to  the  Messiah  ;"  and  by  consequence,  (as 
he  views  the  argument,)  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection : 

13 


146       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

and  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  reader  should  judge  for 
himself  of  their  conclusiveness. 

"  But,"  says  the  Professor,  "  we  have  more  positive  proof 
from  exegetical  sources  that  no  such  allusion  is  contained  in 
the  language."  p.  101.  And  this  proof  is  simply  that  the 
word  Vmj  answering  to  the  term  Redeemer,  "  is  variously 
rendered  by  interpreters  vindicator^  avenger,  deliverer.'''' 
And  he  '^supposes  it  to  be  applied  to  God  considered  in  the 
character  of  a  vindicating  or  avenging  patron  of  Job,  who 
would  appear  as  the  asserter  and  defender  of  his  injured  in- 
nocence— innocence,  that  is,  so  far  as  the  unjust  charges 
and  accusations  of  his  professed  friends  were  concerned." 
And  as  the  fulfilment  of  this  expectation,  the  passage  in  Job 
xlii.  5,  is  quoted ;  "  I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of 
the  ear,  but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee.''''  This,  the  Professor 
considers  as  "  a  fair  and  unforced  interpretation  of  this  re- 
markable passage,"  and  here  ends  his  "  more  positive  proof 
from  exegetical  sources." 

To  this  I  reply,  1.  that  this  construction  is,  as  before  re- 
marked, based  merely  upon  its  being  an  admissible  gram- 
matical explanation.  As  to  its  reasonableness,  every  one 
must  judge  for  himself.  2.  It  is  hot  only  destitute  o? proof, 
but  the  evidence  is  directly  against  it.  We  have  shown  that 
Job  must  have  had  faith  in  the  Redeemer ;  but  there  is  no 
where  in  the  book  any  proof  that  he  had  the  least  expecta- 
tion of  a  temporal  deliverance.  And  his  wishing  so  often  for 
death,  as  the  end  of  all  his  sufferings,  clearly  shows  that  he 
in  fact  had  no  such  expectation.  See  chap.  vi.  8-11,  and 
vii.  7,  8,  and  xvii.  11-16.  Here  then  is  proof  against 
mere  presumption.  .Tob  knew  his  Redeemer,  as  all  the  other 
righteous  patriarchs  did,  and  expected  salvation  through 
him;  but  he  did  not  know  that  he  should  obtain  temporal 
deliverance,  but  rather  did  he  think  the  contrary.  To  which 
of  these  facts,  then,  ought  the  passage  in  question  to  be  re- 
ferred? 3.  Hence  also,  though  Job  expressly  declares  that 
he  has  no  hope  as  to  the  present  life,  yet  he  had  a  hope  be- 
yond death.  See  e.  g.,  chap.  xiii.  15.  "  Though  he  slay 
me  yet  will  I  trust  in  him."  And  hence  he  so  vehemently 
desired  death,  that  he  might  rest  with  God.  The  passage 
under  consideration  cannot  therefore  refer  to  a  temporal  re- 
storation. 4.  The  term  Goel  'js^  most  properly  agrees  to 
the  description  which  we  have  of  the  character  and  offices  of 
Christ.    And  an  examination  of  the  places  in  the  Old  Testa- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  147 

ment  in  which  God  is  called  by  this  name,  will  show  that 
most,  if  not  all  of  them  may  be,  and  not  a  hsv  of  them  must 
be  referred  to  God  the  Son,  the  Malak  Jehovah.  See  among 
others,  Genesis  xlviii.  16,  Isaiah  lix.  20,  and  Hi.  3,  Ixiii.  16, 
and  xii.  14,  and  xliv.  6,  and  xlix.  7,  Psalm  Ixxiv.  2,  &c., 
&;c.  The  term,  as  Professor  Bush  confesses,  is  primarily 
used  to  designate  the  next,  or  near  kinsman,  p.  103.  How 
then  can  it  be,  in  any  sense,  applied  with  propriety,  or  with- 
out violence,  to  God,  when  not  viewed  as  sustaining  the 
offices  of  Jesus  Christ?  But  as  applied  to  the  Redeemer,  it 
is  singularly  appropriate.  The  Goel  or  next  of  kin,  was  to 
redeem  the  sold  or  mortgaged  estate  of  his  deceased  kins- 
man, Leviticus  xxv.  25 ;  and  was  appointed  to  avenge  his 
death.  Numbers  xxxv.  12 ;  and  to  maintain  his  name  and 
honour  by  raising  up  seed  to  him.  Deuteronomy  xxv.  5. 
And  thus  Christ  is  our  nearest  kinsman  and  brother,  Mark 
iii.  35,  and  Hebrews  ii.  11;  "  We  are  members  of  his  body, 
of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones,"  Ephesians  v.  30,  and  he  has 
recovered  by  the  price  of  his  own  blood  our  once  happy  in- 
heritance forfeited  by  sin ;  he  has  avenged  the  death  of  man- 
kind by  destroying  the  kingdom  of  him  who  is  the  "  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning ;"  and  will  for  ever  preserve  the 
names  and  honour  and  persons  of  his  chosen.  Thus 
strikingly  does  the  name  i^seZ/"  apply  to  the  Redeemer.  And 
what  then  becomes  of  Professor  Bush's  *'  more  positive  proof 
from  exegetical  sources  "? 

The  Professor  also  quotes  Menasseh  Ben  Israel,  as  say- 
ing, that  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  relating  to  the  re- 
surrection ;  and  as  asserting,  also,  that  it  does  refer  to  "  the 
Redeemer  of  the  soul,  who  translates  it  to  a  seat  of  happi- 
ness.". Considering  the  view  which  Professor  Bush  takes 
of  the  passage,  this  is  a  singular  authority  which  he  has 
produced.  He  admits,  that  if  Goel  refers  here  to  the  ex- 
pected Redeemer  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  the  passage 
must,  by  consequence,  refer  to  the  resurrection.  But  Me- 
nasseh Ben  Israel  says,  that  it  does  refer  to  the  Redeemer. 
In  support  of  this  declaration,  also,  the  whole  of  the  primi- 
tive Christian  fathers  may  be  adduced.  Htec  (i.  e.,  that  Goel 
here  refers  to  Christ,)  communis  est  Patrum  sententia,  says 
Sanctius  :  "  It  is  the  common  sentiment  of  the  fathers."  And 
ah  vno  disce  omnes.  Jerome  Epist.  ad  Pammachium  re- 
marks :  "  What  is  more  evident  than  this  prophecy?  None, 
even  since  Christ,  hath  spoken  so  plainly  of  the  resurrection 


148       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

as  he  before  Christ."  Not  only  asserting  that  Goel  refers 
here  to  the  Redeemer,  but  that  the  passage  announces  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  Jerome's  authority  as  a  He- 
braist is  not  to  be  despised ;  and  it  is,  at  any  rate,  in  the 
matter  before  us,  quite  as  good  as  that  of  Rabbi  Menasseh 
Ben  Israel,  whom  the  Professor  has  so  strangely  adduced  in 
support  of  his  own  position. 

So  far  as  Professor  Bush's  criticisms  and  objections  are 
concerned,  therefore,  the  passage  has  lost  none  of  its  claims 
to  be  regarded  as  referring  to  the  Redeemer,  and  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection. 

There  are  other  objections,  which  Professor  Bush  has  not 
noticed,  and  which  may  be  briefly  referred  to.  "  1.  The 
ancient  Jews  appear  to  have  known  nothing  of  the  explana- 
tion of  the  passage  which  is  now  commonly  received :  nor 
are  there  any  traces  of  it  in  the  LXX."  But  it  must  be  re- 
membered, that  the  Jewish  commentators  referred  to,  all 
lived  and  wrote  since  the  time  of  Christ,  and  after  the  judi- 
cial sentence  mentioned  in  Isa.  vi.  10,  had  been  inflicted 
upon  their  nation.  Compare  Matt.  xiii.  15,  Mark  iv.  12, 
Luke  viii.  10,  John  xii.  40,  Acts  xxviii.  27,  and  Rom.  xi.  8. 
This  objection  is,  therefore,  of  no  weight,  especially  when  it 
is  considered  that  the  primitive  Christians  did  so  explain  it. 
And  then  as  to  the  Septuagint  version,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  Jews,  from  time  immemorial,  entertained  the 
false  notion,  that  Job  in  his  sufferings  denied  the  providence 
of  God.  Hence  they  would  avoid  giving  his  language  any 
construction  that  might  seem  to  recognize  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection,  as  the  common  version  makes  him  do. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  it  is  contrary  to  all  analogy  that 
such  a  clear  statement  of  these  doctrines,  (asserted  by  the 
common  version  to  be  contained  in  this  passage,)  should  be 
found  in  so  ancient  a  writing.  But  analogical  arguments 
ought  to  be  sustained  by  proof:  for  it  is  easy  to  imagine 
them  to  be  real  when  they  exist  only  in  fancy.  Enoch  ut- 
tered one  of  the  clearest  prophecies  of  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  that  is  contained  in  the  Bible — and  he  was  only  ^Hhe 
seventh  from  Adam.''''  Jude  14,  15.  On  this  prophecy  it 
may  be  also  in  place  to  quote  a  passage  from  the  able 
^^Notes  on  Genesis,''^  by  Professor  Bush,  in  reply  to  this 
objection  from  analogy: — "A  brief  but  impressive  specifnen 
of  his  (Enoch's)  preaching,"  says  this  forcible  annotator, 
''is  preserved  by  the  apostle  Jude,  from  which  iT  ap- 


OF  THE 
ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDEM        ^  14(1 

fears,  that  the  boctrine  of  the  second^  aljyent  of 
Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  a  judg- 
ment  TO   come,  were  taught,  though  obscurely,  in 

THE    very    earliest     AGES    OF    THE    WORLD."       FrOHl    the 

ascension  of  Enoch,  (Heb.  xi.  5,  and  Gen.  v.  22,)  also,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  might  well  be  inferred ;  especially 
when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  well  known  fact,  that  man 
was  not  created  mortal,  but  became  so  by  sin,  from  which  he 
was  to  be  redeemed.  And  that  the  ancient  prophets  and. 
patriarchs  were  generally  acquainted  with  these  doctrines, 
seems  to  be  clear  from  Heb.  xi.  and  1  Pet.  i.  9-12.  Abra- 
ham had  the  promise  made  to  him,  that  Christ  should  come 
out  of  his  loins;  Gen.  xii.  3;  and  he  is  said  by  Christ  to 
have  "seew  his  day^^^  and  rejoiced.  John  viii.  56.  When 
he  left  Ur,  also,  it  was  a  heavenly  city  which  he  sought, 
whose  builder  and  maker  is  God,  Heb.  xi.  10,  16;  which 
infers  a  very  clear  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  immor- 
tality. The  laws  of  Moses,  also,  against  necromancy y  Deut. 
xviii.  9-12,  (compare  also  1  Sam.  xxviii.,)  infer  a  knowledge 
of  the  same  truth.  So,  also,  the  Hebrew  name  for  the  king- 
dom of  the  dead,  '7wa'>  (acT^?,)  which  often  occurs  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  in  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  infers  the 
same  knowledge.  See  Gen.  xxxvii.  35,  &c.  And  the  same 
may  be  said  with  respect  to  the  often  occurring  phrase,  "<o 
he  gathered  to  his  people"  (or  rather,  "<o  enter  into  his 
dwelling  place;")  see  Gen.  xxv.  8 ;  xxxv.  29;  Numb.  xx. 
24,  &c.  Paul,  also,  argues  from  Jacob's  remark  in  Gen. 
xlvii.  9,  (where  that  patriarch  calls  his  life  a  journey,)  that 
the  patriarchs  expected  immortality.  Heb.  xi.  13-16.  See, 
also,  Christ's  argument  with  the  Sadducees,  Matt.  xxii.  23, 
(compare  Exod.  iii.  6.)  The  analogical  argument  seems, 
therefore,  to  be  all  the  other  way. 

3.  It  is  also  objected,  that  "  if  Job  had  such  distinct  ex- 
pectations and  hopes,  it  is  hard  to  account  for  it  that  he  did 
not  earlier  express  them;  that  he  did  not  oflener  console 
himself  with  them,  and  that  he  constantly  recurs  to  his  own 
complaints  and  doubts,  which  would  have  been  entirely  set 
aside  and  answered  by  the  knowledge  of  any  such  deliver- 
ance." Knapp^s  Theology,  p.  465.  But  if  there  is  any  force 
in  this  objection,  it  applies  equally  against  the  construction 
of  the  passage  given  by  Dr.  Knapp  himself,  and  by  Professor 
Bush,  and  all  who  dissent  from  the  common  view.  For  if 
Job  had  the  confident  expectation  of  a  temporal  deliverance, 

13* 


150  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

which  they  assert  that  he  professes  in  these  words,  "  why 
did  he  not  oftener  express  it,  or  console  himself  by  it;"  and 
"  why  does  he  constantly  recur  to  his  own  complaints  and 
doubts,  which  would  have  been  entirely  set  aside  and  an- 
swered by  the  knowledge  of  any  such  deliverance?"  If  this 
objection,  therefore,  proves  the  common  view  to  be  erro- 
neous, it  proves,  also,  the  erroneousness  of  the  view  taken 
by  Dr.  Knapp  and  those  who  agree  with  him. 

4.  The  next  objection  urged  by  Dr.  Knapp  is  the  following  : 
"  Nor  can  it  be  accounted,  for,  that  his  friends  should  have 
replied  nothing  to  the  statement  of  such  a  doctrine  as  this, 
since  they  take  up  one  by  one  all  his  remarks,  his  com- 
plaints, and  his  consolations,  and  refute  them.  How,  then, 
could  they  have  passed,  unnoticed,  this  most  important  of 
all  his  arguments?"  But — 1.  If  it  were  a  fact,  however, 
that  Job's  friends  do  not  reply  to  him  here,  it  would  only 
prove,  that  like  some  other  controvertists,  they  had  acquired 
the  art  of  silently  passing  by  what  they  could  not  answer. 
Then,  2.  If  it  is  true  that  they  have  not  replied  to  the  idea, 
(asserted  in  the  common  version  of  this  passage,)  of  Job's 
faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, neither  can  it  be  shown  that  they  reply  to  the  idea  of 
an  expected  temporal  deliverance.  This  objection,  there- 
fore, applies  as  strongly  against  the  explanation  of  Dr. 
Knapp  and  Professor  Bush  as  it  does  against  the  common 
one.  But,  3.  The  friends  of  Job  do  give  a  general  reply  to 
what  he  has  here  advanced,  and  from  that  reply  it  is  clear 
to  my  own  mind,  that  they  understood  his  words  as  we  do. 
In  his  argument  he  had  said,  "  You  see  how  grievously  God 
has  afflicted  me,  you  ought  not  then,  by  insult,  to  add  to  my 
calamities,*  but  rather  to  comfort  and  console  me.  For  how- 
ever I  may  be  afflicted,  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,"  &c. 
&;c.  But  how  does  Zophar  answer  this?  Why  by  accusing  Job 
of  hypocrisy;  chap.  xx.  5,  etc.,  and  by  insisting  that  he  must 
he  wicked,  because  he  was  thus  punished,  and  that  therefore 
he  had  better  repent  before  God's  wrath  and  fury  shall  be 
poured  out  upon  him  far  worse  than  it  now  is.  See  verses 
23 — 29.  Let  the  reader  now  decide  whether  such  a  reply 
would  be  more  appropriate  to  the  expression  of  a  hope  of 
speedy  temporal  prosperity,  or  to  such  a  hope  as  Job  is  un- 
derstood to  express  in  the  common  version  of  the  passage  ? 
The  charge  of  hypocrisy  might  properly  lie  against  the  ex- 
pression of  such  a  hope,  (for  the  words  of  Job  may  contain 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  151 

the  patriarchal  confession  of  faith,)  and  the  expression  of  it 
may  have  been  considered  as  a  presentation  of  his  claim 
to  be  regarded  as  a  true  servant  of  God  :  and  if  he  had  no 
such  hope,  while  he  asserted  that  he  had,  the  terms  f]in  and 
V^'>  "  impious  and  hypocritical  wretch,"  verse  5,  could  be 
properly  applied  to  him.  But  this  could  hardly  be  done  if 
he  merely  expressed  a  hope  of  speedy  temporal  deliverance. 
The  avowal  of  such  a  hope  might  prove  that  he  was  simply 
labouring  under  a  mistake ;  but  could  afford  no  ground  for 
accusing  him  of  impiety  and  hypocrisy,  however  his  charac- 
ter in  other  respects  might  have  been  regarded. 

5.  Dr.  Knapp  again  objects,  "  From  many  passages  in 
the  book  of  Job,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  indeed  acquainted 
with  a  life  after  death  (he  speaks  of  '?^i^);  but  there  is  no 
satisfactory  evidence  that  he  believed  in  a  state  of  retribu- 
tion beyond  the  grave;  vide  chap.  xiv.  7-12;  vii.  6;  ix. 
25;  xvii.  11-16;  xvi.  22,  seq."  But  this  appears  to  be  a 
refinement  of  theological  dialectics  rarely  indulged  in  by  Dr. 
Knapp.  Is  it  conceivable  that  Job  should  have  separated 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  from  that  of  a  state  of  future 
retribution  ?  But  even  supposing  that  he  did,  it  would  make 
nothing  to  prove  that  he  did  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection.  For  with  precisely  the  same  propriety  that  he 
may  be  supposed  to  make  this  distinction,  it  may  also  be 
supposed  that  he  distinguished  between  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  resurrection  and  that  of  future  retribution.  If  immor- 
tality does  not  infer  future  retribution,  neither  does  the  re- 
surrection necessarily  infer  it.  The  objection  therefore 
amounts  to  nothing;  and  the  texts  quoted  by  Dr.  Knapp, 
make  no  more  against  a  supposed  resurrection  than  against 
a  supposed  immortality. 

6.  The  last  objection  of  Dr.  Knapp,  is,  that  the  common 
translation  of  this  passage  "  does  violence  to  the  words  of 
the  original,  and  is  contrarj''  to  the  whole  iisus  loquendi  of 
the  Bible."  The  strength  of  this  objection  depends  upon  the 
weight  of  Dr.  Knapp's  authority.  Let  it  have  all  that  it  is 
entitled  to,  but  let  not  the  opposing  authorities  be  overlooked. 
The  point  cannot  be  discussed  here,  but  Michaelis,  Rosen- 
miiller.  Hales,  Pfeiffer,  Schultens,  J.  Pye  Smith,  &c.,  may 
be  consulted  respecting  it.  When  Grotius  and  Mercier 
started  the  new  interpretation,  the  violation  of  the  Hebrew 
idiom  was  declared  to  be  all  on  their  side.  And  so  far  as 
the  recognition  of  the  Redeemer  by  Job  is  concerned,  (and 


152       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

on  this  point  Professor  Bush  declares  that  the  whole  contro- 
versy turns,)  Mercier  himself,  the  very  Coryphaeus  of  the 
interpreters  of  Job,  is  compelled  to  admit  it  substantially. 
Mr.  Barnes  also  frankly  admits  that  no  violence  is  done  to 
the  vsus  loqueiidi  by  the  common  rendering. 

III.  The  Professor  next  quotes  and  comments  on  Psalm 
xvi.  9,  10. 

"Therefore  my  heart  is  glad,  and  my  glory  rejoiceth :  my  flesh 
also  shall  rest  in  hope.  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell ;  nei- 
ther wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption." 

And  on  this  text  he  remarl<s:  "The  fact  of  a  resur- 
rection is  undoubtedly  taught  in  these  words,  and  yet  from 
the  inspired  comment  of  Peter,  Acts  ii.  29-31,  it  is  clear 
that  it  is  a  resurrection  predicated  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  not  of  the  bodies  of  men  in  general;"  (p.  104,)  a  re- 
mark which  sounds  rather  singular  when  viewed  in  con- 
nexion with  some  others  of  the  Professor  on  the  same  sub- 
ject :  as  e.  g.  "  It  is  no  where  explicitly  affirmed — that 
the  identical  material  body  of  Christ  arose,^  p.  152.  Most 
persons  would  think  this  a  contradiction;  especially  as  the 
Psalmist  and  Peter  both  speak  directly  of  the  flesh  of  the 
Saviour,  (nE>3,  and  o-at§^) ;  which  can  refer  to  nothing  but  to 
his  "  identical  material  body.^^ 

IV.  The  next  passage  to  which  he  refers,  is  Psalm  xvii.  15. 

"As  for  me,  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness;  I  shall  be 
satisfied  when  I  awake  with  thy  likeness." 

The  Professor  enters  into  a  lengthened  criticism  of  this 
passage,  into  which  we  shall  not  follow  him ;  for  he  admits 
what  renders  such  a  course  unnecessary.  He  supposes  that 
Paul,  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  49,  may  have  "  a  latent  allusion 
to  the  passage,"  and  consequently,  that  it  may  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection ;  though  he  denies  that  it  teaches 
the  resurrection  of  the  body.  He  also  quotes  the  version  of 
the  Jewish  commentator,  Sol.  Jarchi,  ("  I  shall  be  satisfied 
when  the  dead  shall  awake  from  their  sleep,")  and  observes, 
"  This  preserves  the  general  sentiment  of  the  text,  but  leaves 
it  doubtful  at  what  period  this  '  awaking  of  the  dead'  is  to 
take  place."  p.  107.  And  he  himself  proposes  to  translate 
the  passage  and  explain  it  as  follows :  "  guided  by  them, 
(the  accents,)  we  would  translate,  '  I  shall  be  satisfied,  in 
the  awaking,  with  thy  likeness,'  understanding  it  of  the 
beatific  vision  to  be  enjoyed  at  the  illustrious  period  of  the 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  153 

*  awaking'  so  often  spoken  of  in  the  prophets  as  identical 
with  the  great  consummation,  when  the  righteous  dead  are 
to  be  gloriously  manifested  as  risen  from  the  dead ;"  deny- 
ing at  the  same  time,  however,  that  this  is  to  be  understood 
*'  in  a  sense  to  include  a  resurrection  of  their  bodies.''^ 
These  admissions  that  the  "  resurrection'^  is  taught  thus 
clearly  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  are  gratifying. 
What  the  term  signifies  in  its  biblical  acceptation,  will  be 
considered  hereafter.  Professor  Bush,  himself,  will  admit, 
(as  he  thus  concedes  that  these  passages  do  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection,)  that  if  the  Scriptures  make  known 
the  resurrection  of  the  hody^  clearly  and  unequivocally,  that 
doctrine  must  likewise  be  announced  in  Psalm  xvii.  15. 

He  next  quotes  Psalm  xlix.  14,  15,  which,  as  I  do  not 
believe  that  it  refers  to  the  resurrection,  I  shall  dismiss  with- 
out remark. 

V.  His  next  quotation  is  from  Isaiah  xxv.  7,  8. 

"And  he  will  destroy  in  this  mountain  the  face  of  the  covering  cast 
over  all  people,  and  the  veil  that  is  spread  over  all  nations.  He  will 
swallow  up  death  in  victory;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe  away  tears 
from  off  ail  faces;  and  the  rebuke  of  his  people  shall  be  taken  away 
from  off  ail  the  earth :  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it." 

This  passage  has  caused  the  Professor  much  difficulty  ; 
his  exposition  of  it  is  laboured,  and  has  every  appearance  of 
being  altogether  unsatisfactory  to  himself.  The  following 
is  the  analysis  of  it.  He  says  that  the  period  spoken  of,  is 
plainly  that  particular  era  under  Messiah's  reign  when  the 
mystical  Babylon  shall  be  destroyed ;  "  at  which  time  the 
Lord  God  will  abolish  death  for  ever,  and  all  sorrow." 
Death,  he  explains  to  be  '*  another  term  for  all  manner  of 
grievous  pestilences,  &c. — every  thing  which  causes  grief, 
mourning,  and  tribulation." — Such  death  as  is  spoken  of 
Psalm  xliv.  22;  and  as  he  thinks  is  referred  to  in  Rev.  xxi. 
4,  *'  There  shall  be  no  more  death;  i.  e.  (says  the  Professor,) 
no  more  premature  death  by  disease,  pestilence,  casualty, 
the  sword  of  war,  broken  hearts,  or  any  form  of  wasting 
judgments.  This  is  the  kind  of  death  that  shall  be  swallowed 
up  in  victory,  or,  as  the  term  is  otherwise  rendered, '  for  ever,' 
at  the  time  to  which  the  oracle  points  forward."  pp.  Ill, 
112.  He  denies  also  that  this  time  "is  the  end  of  the  world;" 
and  endeavours  to  explain  Paul's  words  in  1  Corinthians  xv. 
54,  so  that  they  may  not  appear  to  contradict  his  construe* 
tion  of  the  text. 


154       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

We  utterly  dissent  from  this  view  of  the  text.  Professor 
Bush  has  failed  to  support  his  exposition  of  the  word  ^'- death''' 
DID,  and  has  left  the  subject  of  the  period  referred  to  utterly 
undefined.  But  we  shall  remark  upon  each  of  these  particu- 
lars ;  for  the  latter  is  one  of  much  interest  to  the  general 
subject  under  discussion. 

As  to  the  import  of  the  word  translated  death,  in  verse  8, 
while  Professor  Bush  would  not  change  the  translation  of  it, 
he  would  explain  it  so  as  to  make  it  mean  not  death  in  the 
natural  acceptation  of  the  word,  but  suffering,  misery,  &c., 
&;c.  But  for  such  an  exposition  he  gives  us  no  reason  what- 
ever. But  the  objections  to  this  view  are,  1.  It  is  wholly 
unsupported  by  reason  or  authority.  Suffering  and  misery, 
and  all  the  procuring  causes  of  death  itself,  may  be  properly 
considered  as  included  in  death :  and  the  abolishing  of  death, 
may,  and  doubtless  must  include,  the  abolishing  of  all  its 
procuring  causes ;  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  from  whom 
it  is  abolished.  But  for  what  reason,  or  on  what  principle 
can  it  be  imagined  that  "  every  thing  which  causes  grief, 
mourning,  and  tribulation,"  i.  e.,  sin  and  all  its  evils — all 
that  really  procures  death,  are  here  said  by  the  prophet  to 
be  abolished,  and  death  itself  to  remain?  Revelation  xxi.  4, 
which  Professor  Bush  brings  in  to  illustrate  and  confirm  his 
view,  is  directly  against  it ;  for  this  passage  speaks  of  death 
proper.  And  at  least  until  Professor  Bush  had  explained  it, 
so  as  to  show  that  QavstTo?  is  not  here  used  in  its  ordinary 
sense,  it  was  premature  for  him  to  refer  to  it  as  illustrating 
and  corroborating  his  view  of  mn  in  Isaiah  xxv.  7.  Then 
again,  2.  His  view  is  directly  contrary  to  the  teaching  of 
Paul  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  54:  *' So  when  this  corruptible 
shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  (IvS'iKryitttt  ap^ae^o-icm'^^  and  this 
mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  he  brought 
to  pass  the  saying  which  is  written,  (roTi  yma-tTctt  o  x6yoc 
0  yrygAfAy.ivoi,)  death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory."  In  this 
passage,  Paul  unequivocally  applies  the  phrase  under  dis- 
cussion to  the  great  era  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  But 
to  this.  Professor  Bush  replies,  that  "  such  cannot  be  the 
meaning  of  Paul,  provided  it  be  not  the  meaning  of  Isaiah." 
p.  112.  This  is  truly  a  singular  canon  of  criticism;  and  is 
a  method  of  expounding  the  clear  and  unambiguous  declara- 
tion of  an  apostle,  without  a  precedent,  even  in  the  Anastasis 
itself.  It  needs  no  response  other  than  to  say  that  the  Pro- 
fessor has  not  correctly  expounded  the  passage  of  Isaiah,  if 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  155 

his  exposition  is  contrary  to  (hat  of  Paul:  a  declaration  that 
requires  no  proof  to  sustain  it. 

Horsley  in  his  commentary  on  Hosea  xiii.  14,  refers  to 
the  text  under  discussion,  and  exhibits  the  futility  of  such  a 
criticism  as  that  of  Professor  Bush  in  the  following  forcible 
remarks :  "  The  prophecy  which  the  Apostle  cites  (in  1  Co- 
rinthians XV.  54,)  as  one  which  would  receive  its  completion 
in  the  general  resurrection  at  the  last  day,  is  a  saying  *  that 
is  written,'  which  shall  then  be  brought  to  pass ;  this  pro- 
phecy is  written  in  Isaiah  xxv.  8,  and  no  where  else.  And 
this  prophecy  which  he  cites,  he  cites  with  precision.  And 
it  may  be  useful  to  observe,  that  he  cites  it  not  according  to 
the  version  of  the  LXX.  He  translates  the  Hebrew  text 
verbatim,  in  contradiction  to  the  version  of  the  LXX. ;  for 
the  version  of  the  LXX.,  in  this  place,  is  so  wretchedly  and 
abominably  erroneous,  that  the  sense  it  gives  is  exactly  the 
reverse  of  the  Hebrew  text."*  Here,  then,  Paul  quotes  and 
literally  translates  a  passage  from  Isaiah,  and  unambiguously 
expounds  it  by  showing  when  and  how  it  will  be  fulfilled ; 
and  Professor  Bush  rejects  the  exposition  of  the  apostle,  and 
justifies  himself  in  so  doing,  by  the  remark  that  "  such  can- 
not be  the  meaning  of  Paul,  provided  it  be  not  the  meaning 
of  Isaiah :"  and  then  attempts  to  show  that  the  meaning 
which  Paul  has  given  it,  is  not  the  meaning  of  Isaiah.  The 
mere  statement  of  such  a  procedure  is  abundantly  sufficient 
to  expose  it  to  reprobation.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find 
among  orthodox  expositors,  a  parallel  case  in  the  whole 
annals  of  Scripture  criticism. 

But  let  us  advert  to  his  attempt  to  prove  that  Isaiah  does 
not  mean  what  Paul  understood  him  to  mean.  "  To  this  we 
reply,  that  such  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  Paul,  provided  it 
be  not  the  meaning  of  Isaiah.  The  Spirit  that  presided  over 
both  cannot  utter  oracles  at  variance  with  themselves.  But 
nothing  can  be  more  obvious,  from  the  whole  drift  of  the 
prophet's  strain,  than  that  he  is  not  speaking  of  the  end  of 
the  world.  He  is  merely  setting  before  us  one  of  the  links 
in  the  great  chain  of  events  which  are  to  distinguish  the 
latter  days  of  Zion's  welfare.     How  then  is  the  Apostle^s 

*  The  Hebrew  is  nxjS  niDn^jVa.  The  LXX.  (according  to  Reineccius) 
translate  it  xaTe;r*sv  o  QavsLrog  io-^vo-ac'^  and  Paul  renders  it  x«t«tc6»  o 
SdvstTOf  lie  vIkoc  Lowth  renders  it,  "  He  shall  utterly  destroy  death  for 
ever";  and  Barnes  gives  it  substantially  the  same  translation,  "  He 
will  abolish  death  for  ever." 


156  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

quotation  to  be  understood?  An  alternative  of  construe- 
tions  is  presented.  He  either  cites  the  language  of  Isaiah 
as  containing  an  announcement,  the  words — the  letter — of 
which  are  strikingly  applicable  to  the  state  of  things  which 
he  is  describing,  without  assuming  that  they  were  originally 
intended  to  refer  to  it ;  or,  acting  the  part  of  an  inspired  ex- 
positor of  Isaiah,  he  applies  his  language  to  the  period  of 
time  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  in  view  in  inditing  it  through 
the  prophet ;  and  this  brings  us  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  epoch  of  the  resurrection  described  by  Paul  is  not  to 
be  placed  at  the  end  of  the  world,  which  Isaiah's  abolition 
of  death  certainly  is  not/'  pp.  112,  113.  Such  is  the  proof 
that  Paul  cannot  mean  in  1  Corinthians  xv.  54,  to  refer  "  to 
the  grand  era  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." 

I  pass  for  the  present  what  is  here  said  concerning  "  the 
end  of  the  world,"  in  order  to  canvass  this  *'  alternative  of 
constructions."  1.  Paul  either  cited  the  mere  words  or  let- 
ter as  applicable  to  what  he  is  speaking  of,  without  assuming 
that  they  were  originally  intended  to  apply  as  he  applies 
them.  This  is  "  alternative"  first.  Now  place  along  side 
of  it  the  passage  above  quoted,  from  1  Corinthians  xv. 
*'  Then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  which 
WAS  WRITTEN*. "  (See  the  Greek  on  a  preceding  page^) 
"  written'^  in  Isaiah  xxv.  8.  At  the  time  referred  to  by 
Paul,  "  the  saying^''  (not  the  letter  or  woi'ds  merely,  as  sus- 
ceptible of  an  accommodation  to  that  event,  but  "  the  saying 
which  was  written,")  is  to  receive  its  fulfilment.  And  the 
principle  which  would  explain  this  away  as  a  mere  accom- 
modation of  the  letter,  to  the  thing  predicted,  would  explain 
away  every  prophecy,  the  fulfilment  of  which  is  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament.*  Let  the  reader  try  it  upon  any  other 
one  found  recorded  there.  Try  it  on  Matt.  i.  23,  or  ii.  6,  or 
iii.  3,  or  viii.  17,  or  xiii.  14,  15,  35,  or  xxi.  5,  or  xxvii.  9, 10, 
or  Luke  iv.  18,  19,  or  John  xii.  38,  40,  or  xix.  24,  36,  or 
any  other,  and  there  is  not  one  but  may  be  explained  away 
on  this  principle. 

*  In  his  Preface,  p.  vi.,  Professor  Bush  says,  "  I  have  profoundly 
weighed  all  the  considerations  which  naturally  urge  themselves  upon 
one  who  ventures  to  such  a  length  of  rational  and  exegetical  hardi- 
hood as  he  (the  reader)  will  probably  find  evinced  in  the  work  before 
him."  The  above-mentioned  instance  is,  I  presume,  one  of  the  speci- 
mens of  this  '*  length  of  rational  and  exegetical  hardihood"  to  which 
the  Professor  refers.    He  certainly  has  characterized  it  appropriately. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  157 

The  other  of  this  "alternative  of  constructions,"  is,  that 
Paul  acts  "  the  part  of  an  inspired  expositor  of  Isaiah,"  and 
applies  his  language  to  the  time  referred  to  by  Isaiah ;  and 
this,  says  the  Professor,  "  brings  us  irresistibly  to  the  con= 
elusion,  that  the  epoch  of  the  resurrection  described  by  Paul 
is  not  to  be  placed  at  the  end  of  the  world,  which  Isaiah's 
abolition  of  death  certainly  is  not."  That  is,  in  other  words, 
(and  we  may  safely  defy  the  Professor  himself  to  get  any 
other  meaning  out  of  his  language,)  Paul  acts  as  "  an  in- 
spired expositor  of  Isaiah,"  and  therefore  his  language  in 
1  Cor.  XV.,  must  "  irresistibly^^  mean  just  what  Professor 
Bush  understands  Isaiah  to  mean. 

Isaiah  xxv.  8,  has  therefore  lost  none  of  its  force  as  a 
proof-text  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  by  the  criticism 
of  Professor  Bush.  As  expounded  by  Paul,  it  unequivocally 
asserts  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  It  is 
the  body  alone  which  falls  under  the  power  of  death.  And 
death  being  conquered  therefore,  his  prey  is  restored,  and 
the  body  raised  again. 

VI.  The  next  passage  referred  to  by.  Professor  Bush  is 
found  in  Isaiah  xxvi.  19. 

«*  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  together  with  my  dead  body  fehall  Ihcy 
arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust :  for  thy  dew  is  as  the 
dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead." 

It  would  be  useless  to  follow  our  author  through  his  la- 
boured exposition  of  this  passage;  for  his  hypothesis  is  only- 
one  of  an  indefinite  number,  which  have  been  resorted  to  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  the  prophet's  meaning;  and  then 
we  cheerfully  concede  that  the  terms  "dead  men,"  "dead 
body,"  "  arise,"  &;c.,  are  to  be  taken  metaphorically ;  and 
refer  in  their  primary  application  here  to  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  the  Baby 
Ionian  captivity.  These  circumstances  it  is  needless  to  nar- 
rate, for,  so  far  as  our  argument  is  concerned,  we  are  not 
called  upon  to  enter  into  a  formal  exposition  of  the  terms  re- 
ferred to.  We  admit,  and  Professor  Bush  admits,  that  they 
do  not  primarily  refer  to  the  future  resurrection  of  mankind. 
The  captives  in  Babylon  were  dead  in  a  metaphorical  or 
civil  sen^^e  ;  and  they  shall  again  live,  says  the  prophet.  We 
are  willing,  even,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  to  adopt  the 
language  of  our  author,  on  the  subject ;  "  On  the  whole," 

14 


158  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

says  he,  "  we  think  it  must  be  evident  that  the  passage  from 
Isaiah  now  under  consideration  cannot  b6  appealed  to  as 
teaching,  upon  a  fair  construction,  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  (that  is,  directly,  and  primarily.)  At  any  rate,  if  it 
conveys  such  an  implication,  it  is  only  in  an  indirect  and 
typical  way,  by  which  a  national  resuscitation — the  primary 
sense — dimly  shadows  forth  the  re-erection  of  the  defunct 
body  from  its  mouldering  elements.''''  p.  121. 

Now  it  is  our  own  belief  that  the  passage  in  its  primary 
sense  does  not  announce  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  for  the  body,  and  the  dead  referred  to  were  only 
metaphorically  dead :  we  therefore  think  that  "  in  an  indi- 
rect and  typical  way  it  shadows  forth  the  re-erection  of  the 
defunct  body  from  its  mouldering  elements."  But  the  ques- 
tion is.  Upon  what  is  this  metaphor  founded  1  Is  it  a  mere 
inane  expression,  alluding  to  nothing  at  all  ?  The  Jews  un- 
derstood the  meaning  of  dead,  and  dead  body;  and  of  a 
dead  body  arising.  The  language  must  be  understood  in 
its  literal  use,  before  it  can  be  employed  in  metaphor.  How 
then  could  the  prophet  refer  to  a  metaphorical  death  and 
resurrection,  if  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  were  unknown 
to  them  ?  How  could  he  use  it  as  a  figure  to  convey  to  his 
countrymen  a  sweet  and  precious  truth,  if  the  doctrine  from 
which  the  metaphor  was  taken,  was  not  believed  by  them  1  If 
they  were  acquainted  with  the  sentiment,  but  regarded  it 
only  as  fable,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  prophet  would  have 
avoided  selecting  such  a  figure,  lest  his  people  might  suppose 
that  what  he  asserted  was  equally  fabulous?  There  is 
/therefore  no  possible  way  in  which  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
to  which  Lowth  comes ;  who,  in  referring  to  this  passage, 
says,  "  It  appears  from  hence  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  was  at  thai  time  a  ^popular  and  common 
doctrine:  for  an  image  which  is  assumed  in  order  to  express 
or  represent  any  thing  in  the  way  of  allegory  or  metaphor, 
whether  poetical,  or  prophetical,  must  be  an  image  commonly 
known  and  understood  ;  otherwise  it  will  not  answer  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  is  assumed."  Notes  in  loco,  Mr.  Barnes 
presents  also  the  same  view. 

This  passage,  therefore,  by  the  plainest  implication,  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

VII.  The  next  passage  referred  to  by  Professor  Bush,  is 
Ezekiel  xxxvii.  1-14. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  159 

"  The  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon  me,  and  carried  me  out  in  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  set  me  down  in  the  midst  of  the  valley  which 
was  full  of  bones,  and  caused  me  to  pass  by  them  round  about :"  &c. 

Speaking  of  this  vision  of  the  dry  bones,  Jerome  remarks, 
"  Shall  we  not  immediately  give  an  advantage  to  heretics,  if 
we  should  deny  that  this  (representation,)  ought  to  be  under- 
stood of  the  general  resurrection  ?  For  never  would  a  simili- 
tude of  the  resurrection  be  employed  for  illustrating  the 
restoration  of  the  people  of  Israel  unless  a  future  resurrection 
itself  was  also  believed  :  because  no  one  confirms  things  that 
are  uncertain,  by  things  that  have  no  existence."*  And  this 
also  appears  to  be  the  general  sentiment  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Tertullian  and  Augustine  say,  "  From  this  pas- 
sage the  future  resurrection  of  the  body  is  assuredly  to  be 
inferred ;  for  otherwise  a  similitude  would  not  have  been 
taken  from  thence  for  confirming  the  restoration  of  Israel." 
The  Jews  entertain  the  same  view  of  the  subject. 

Professor  Bush  offers  but  few  remarks  upon  this  passage; 
but  he  refers  us  to  his  recent  work,  "  The  Valley  of  Vision" 
in  which  he  has  shown  that  Ezekiel  xxxvii.  1 — 14,  does  not 
speak  of  the  general  resurrection,  but  "  is  merely  a  symboli- 
cal fore-shadowing  of  the  still  futvre  restoration  and  con- 
version of  the  Jews;"  a  view,  which  seems  to  us,  undoubt- 
edly correct. 

In  discussing  the  passage,  therefore,  the  question  is  not 
whether  it  speaks  directly  of  the  general  resurrection — for  it 
is  conceded  that  it  does  ijot :  but  whether  this  employment  of 
such  a  figure  does  not  clearly  infer  that  the  doctrine  on 
which  it  is  based,  or  grounded,  was  known  and  believed  by 
the  Jews  in  Ezekiel's  time?  In  accordance  with  the  asserted 
views  of  the  whole  Jewish  and  Christian  Church,  (on  the 
chapter  before  us,)  we  affirm  that  it  does ;  and  our  reasons 

*  Nee  statim  hsereticis  occasionem  dabimus,  si  heec  de  resurrec- 
tione  communi  intelligi  denegemus?  Nunquam  enim  poneretur  simil- 
itudo  resurrectionis  ad  restitulionem  Israelitici  populi  significandam, 
nisi  esset  resurrectio  ipsa  et  futura  trederetur;  quia  nemo  de  rebus 
non  extantibns  incerta  confirmat."  Professor  Bush  quotes  this  same 
passage ;  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  keen  point  of  old  father  Hierome 
in  the  first  sentence,  he  translates  nee  by  nor,  "  nor  shall  we  at  once 
give  advantage  to  heretics  if  we  deny  that  this  is  to  be  understood  of 
the  general  resurrection."  p.  116— thus  making  Jerome  not  only  talk 
nonsense,  (a  thing  he  very  seldom  does,  if  compared  with  his  cotem- 
poraries,)  but  deny  the  very  thing  that  he  pointedly  affirms. 


160       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

for  thinking  so  are  briefly  stated  in  our  examination  of  the 
passage  last  quoted.  Professor  Bush,  however,  demurs  as 
follows :  "  We  are  aware  it  is  contended  here  also,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  preceding  passage  from  Isaiah,  that  the  announce- 
ment of  a  spiritual  or  figurative  resurrection  necessarily 
supposes  a  literal.  But  to  this  we  reply  by  demanding  the 
scriptural  evidence  that  such  a  resurrection  was  taught  or 
believed  in  Ezekiel's  times.  The  fact  is,  it  will  be  found,  if 
we  mistake  not,  that  the  usual  argumentation  on  this  head  is 
mere  reasoning  in  a  circle.  Certain  passages,  like  those 
now  adverted  to,  are  brought  forward,  elaborately  com- 
mented on,  and  conclusively  shown  to  refer  to  a  symbolical 
resurrection.  (!)  But  from  the  force  of  established  belief  it 
is  strenuously  contended,  that  all  these  images  are  founded 
upon  the  doctrine  of  a  literal  corporeal  resurrection;  and 
when  we  call  for  the  proof  of  this  doctrine,  lo  and  behold,  we 
are  referred  to  the  very  passages  which  are  previously  de- 
monstrated to  have  another  meaning!"  p.  123. 

What  Professor  Bush  means  by  "  the  usual  argumentation 
on  this  head,"  when  he  is  perfectly  aware  that  both  Chris- 
tians and  Jews  have  always  with  one  voice  explained  the 
passage  before  us  to  refer  to  a  figurative  resurrection,  is  hard 
to  tell :  but  if  our  reasoning  in  this  matter  be  a  circle,  it  is 
one  that  can  be  very  easily  squared.  To  the  "  anounce- 
ment  that  a  spiritual  or  figurative  resurrection  necessarily 
supposes  a  literal,''''  (is  literal  the  antithesis  of  spiritual?) 
he  replies  "  by  demanding  the  scriptural  evidence  that  such 
a  resurrection  was  taught  or  believed  in  Ezekiel's  times :" 
for  if  it  were  then  known  and  believed,  the  Professor  will 
admit  that  the  passage  in  question  certainly  refers  to  that 
doctrine.  Is  there  any  proof  therefore  ?  Let  us  see.  We 
begin  with  our  author's  "  Notes  on  Genesis,^''  v.  22.  "  A  brief 
but  impressive  specimen  of  his  (Enoch's)  preaching  is  pre- 
served by  the  apostle  Jude,  from  which  it  appears  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  a  judgment  to  come,  were  taught,  though 
somewhat  obscurely,  in  the  very  earliest  ages  of  the  world. 
Wonderful  as  was  the  translation  of  a  living  man  to  the 
world  of  glory,  we  know  nothing  in  the  revealed  purposes 
of  God  to  forbid  the  occurrence  of  other  instances  of  the  like 
kind  even  in  this  or  any  other  ages  of  the  world,  provided 
they  were  instances  of  equal  eminence  in  piety.  The  same 
distinction  was  subsequently  conferred  on  Elijah,"  &c.     If, 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  161 

then,  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  known 
before  the  times  of  Ezekiei,,  how  will  Professor  Bush  under- 
take to  prove  that  it  was  not  known  in  Ezekiel's  time?  The 
next  argument  that  proves  it  is  also  referred  to  in  this  extract. 
The  Jews  inferred  that  the  righteous  were  to  live  again  in 
their  bodies,  because  Enoch  and  Elijah  lived  in  theirs.  The 
Professor  also,  on  page  104,  of  his  Anastasis,  admits 
that  Psalm  xvi.  9,  10,  announces  the  resurrection  "of  the 
body  of  Christ."  Evidence  might  be  multiplied  ;  but  surely 
these  admissions,  and  affirmations  of  his  own,  must  fully 
satisfy  him  that  the  doctrine  was  known  and  believed  in 
Ezekiel's  time :  and  that  this  imacrined  "  reasonino-  in  a  cir- 
cle,"  has  no  existence  but  in  the  imagination.  Ezekiei  xxxvii., 
therefore,  contains  a  clear  implication  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body. 

VIII.  The   next  passage  quoted  by  Professor  Bush,    is 
Hosea  vi.  2. 

"After  two  days  will  he  revive  us;  in  the  third  day  he  will  raise 
us  up,  and  we  shall  live  in  his  sight." 

We  shall  dismiss  this  text  without  remark,  as  it  is  not  a 
passage  of  primary  importance  in  the  controversy. 

IX.  The  Professor's  next  citation  is  Hosea  xiii.  14. 

"  I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  the  grave ;  I  will  redeem 
them  from  death  :  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues;  O  grave,  1  will  be 
thy  destruction :  repentance  shall  be  hid  from  mine  eyes." 

Were  I  called  upon  to  specify  a  passage  in  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  unambiguously  taught, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  on  the  interpretation  of  which  I 
should  be  willing  to  rest  the  controversy,  it  would  be  this : 
for  even  Daniel  xii.  2,  is  not  clearer  in  its  testimony ;  nor 
are  we  favoured  in  respect  to  it,  as  we  are  in  respect  to  the 
passage  in  Hosea,  with  a  lucid  and  unmistakable  commen- 
tary of  an  inspired  apostle.  Such  being  the  high  (and  uni- 
versally acknowledged)  claims  of  this  passage  to  be  prima- 
rily regarded  in  any  attempted  discussion  of  this  doctrine, 
we  should  of  course  expect  a  priori  that  Professor  Bush 
would  have  laid  out  his  strength  here,  if  any  where,  and  not 
have  laid  aside  his  exegetical  and  critical  apparatus,  until 
there  had  been  some  plausible  construction  put  upon  the  pas- 
sage, which  would  neither  assert  nor  clearly  imply  the  doc- 
trine which  he  opposes.     But  this  the  Professor  has  neither 

14* 


162       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

done  nor  attempted  to  do.  There  is  no  exegesis  of  the  pas- 
sage, no  criticism  of  the  Hebrew,  no  reference  even  to  Fiabbi 
Menasseh  Ben  Israel !  but  the  subject  is  coolly  passed  over 
with  a  reference  to  1  Corinthians  xv.  55,  and  a  promise  here- 
after to  discuss  what  Paul  there  says ;  followed  by  a  remark 
upon  ^^i<'^  and  a  quotation  from  Horsley  "  on  the  general 
subject  of  the  apostolic  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament." 
p.  127.  And  here  ends  the  chapter.  This  may  have  been 
all  that  Professor  Bush  supposed  to  be  necessary;  but  it  is 
not  a  rash  assertion  to  say,  that  from  the  high-sounding  pre- 
tensions of  his  work,  it  was  not  all  that  his  readers  had  a 
right  to  expect.  And  irhy,  in  the  name  of  candour  and  of 
all  consistency,  should  he  dwell  so  extensively  as  he  has 
done,  on  passages  which  it  is  cheerfully  conceded  do  not 
positively  and  directly  ajfirm  the  doctrine  under  discussion, 
and  then  pass  over,  almost  without  remark,  one  which  has 
ever  been  understood  as  clearly  and  fully  asserting  it? 
Literally  the  passage  reads  thus : 

"From  the  hand  of  Sheol*  I  will  redeem  them; 
From  Death  I  will  deliver  them  : 
I  will  be  thy  death  (or  plagues,)  O  Death ! 
I  will  be  thy  destroyer,  O  Sheol!" 

The  idea  in  the  last  two  clauses  is,  that  Messiah  will  visit 
upon  death  and  Sheol,  in  retribution,  what  they  had  inflicted 
upon  his  chosen.  The  passage  is  highly  poetic,  and  its  im- 
port very  easily  perceived.  Death  has  conquered  the  body ; 
Sheol,  or  the  invisible  world  retains  the  spirit.  But  Sheol 
must  render  up  the  spirit ;  Death  also  must  resign  the  body. 
When  he  resigns  it,  he  in  turn  is  for  ever  conquered ;  and 
Sheol  is  now  in  turn  taken  possession  of  by  those  who  were, 
so  to  speak,  detained  by  it  as  captives.  Hence  it  is  also 
represented  as  wholly  destroyed,  for  this  separate  state  will 
then  exist  no  more.  See  1  Corinthians  xv.  26,  55,  and 
Revelation  xx.  13,  14.  As  to  =n:  in  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse,  it  seems  there  to  mean  properly  repentance,  as  it  is 
translated.  The  idea  is,  "  I  shall  never  repent  of  this  decla- 
ration— I  shall  not  fail  to  accomplish  it  fully."     In  Hosea 

*  Modern  languages  (European  at  least,)  furnish  no  term  by  which 
to  translate  SiXtt'  or  aS'nc  adequately.  It  refers  to  the  state  of  the  dead 
without  distinction  as  to  condition.  The  reader  will  find  a  very 
good  exposition  of  it  in  Campbell's  Prelim.  Dis.  VI.  Part  II.  and 
some  excellent  remarks  in  a  note  bv  Howe,  in  his  splendid  sermon  on 
Rev.  i.  18.    See  Works,  p.  309  seq." 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  163 

xiii.  14,  therefore,  we  have  a  full  and  clear  and  positive  an- 
nouncement of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body ; 
— the  deliverance  of  the  spirit  from  Sheol,  and  of  the  body 
from  the  power  of  death. 

X.  The  last  passage  adduced  from  the  Old  Testament  by 
Professor  Bush,  is  Daniel  xii.  2. 

"And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake: 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting-  eon- 
tempt." 

The  remarks  of  our  author  on  this  text  are  first  in  re- 
ference to  the  proper  translation  of  it;  and  secondly  in  refer- 
ence to  the  "  kind  of  resurrection  here  announced."  In 
respect  to  the  first  of  these  he  proposes  to  translate  the  pas- 
sage literally  as  follows:  "  And  many  of  the  sleepers  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground  shall  awake — these  to  everlasting  life, 
and  those  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt :"  which  he 
paraphrases  thus.  "  '  These,''  i.  e.,  the  awakened,  awake 
to  everlasting  life ;  '  and  tJiose,^  i.  e.,  the  other  class,  who 
abide  in  the  dust,  who  do  not  awake  at  all,  remain  subject 
to  the  shame  and  ignominy  of  that  death,  whatever  it  was, 
which  marked  their  previous  condition."  pp.  131,  132.  On 
page  120,  he  likewise  refers  to  the  passage,  and  gives  it  a 
similar  explanation.  In  his  "  Valley  of  Vision"  pp.  48 — 52, 
also,  he  gives  it  the  same  exposition;  and  remarks,  "We 
should  not  be  surprised  if  the  progress  of  biblical  investigation 
should  yet  establish  the  most  intimate  relation  between  these 
texts,  (Isaiah  xxvi.  19,  and  Daniel  xii.  2,)  and  that  intensely 
mysterious  portion  of  the  Apocalypse,  (chap.  20,)  which 
announces  the  spiritual  quickening,  in  the  first  resurrection, 
of  those  saints  who  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years^  and  of  *  the  rest  of  the  dead  who  lived  not,  [c>Ox.  'i^noAv 
— erroneously  rendered  '  lived  not  again,')  until  the  thousand 
years  were  finished  ;'  or,  rather,  perhaps  '  as  long  as  the 
thousand  years  were  finishing,'  i.  e.,  during  the  whole  course 
of  the  millennium,  without  any  implication  that  they  should 
live  when  that  period  had  expired."  p.  51. 

This  criticism  of  the  Professor's  is,  however,  not  new.  Old 
Rabbi  Saadias  Gaon  in  his  commentary,  long  ago  took  the 
same  view  of  it  substantially.  "  This,"  says  he,  "  is  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  of  Israel,  whose  lot  is  to  eternal  life;  but 
those  who  do  not  awake,  they  are  the  destroyed  of  the  Lord, 
who  go  down  to  the  habitation  beneath,  that  is  Gehenna,  and 


164  THE  RESURRECTION  OE  THE  BODY 

shall  be  an  abhorrence  to  all  flesh."  The  Rabbi,  in  this  last 
clause,  refers  to  Isaiah  Ixvi.  24,  in  which  place  also  1^'*2? 
(translated  contempt  in  Daniel  xii.  2,)  occurs,  with  the  slight 
change  of  the  :  into  a  ••  — these  being  the  only  places  where 
it  is  used  in  the  Bible.  The  same  exposition  is  likewise  given 
by  some  of  the  English  literal  school. 

The  reasons  given  by  Professor  Bush  to  sustain  this  trans- 
lation are,  I  think,  satisfactory.*  But  his  paraphrase  of  it 
is  not  sustained  by  the  translation  itself.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  time  referred  to  in  Dan.  xii.  1,2,  is  synchronical 
with  that  mentioned  in  Rev.  xx.  1-6;  and  fully  believe  that 
the  events  there  spoken  of  are  the  same.  The  inference  of 
Professor  Bush,  that  the  "  many"  who  do  not  at  that  time 
arise,  or  "  the  rest  of  the  dead"  who  then  arise  not,  will 
never  arise,  is  wholly  unsupported  by  Dan.  xii.  2,  and  di- 
rectly contradictory  to  Rev.  xx.  7-13. 

2.  But  "what  Ixind  of  a  resurrection  is  that  here  an- 
nounced, and  to  what  time  is  it  to  be  referred  ?"  asks  Pro- 
fessor Bush  in  the  next  place:  and  we  shall  proceed  to 
consider  his  answer  to  these  important  queries.  He  remarks 
that  the  context"  indicates  pretty  clearly  that  the  period  re- 
ferred to,  can  scarcely  be  that  of  '  the  end  of  the  world,'  as 
that  phrase  is  usually  apprehended,  for  the  sequel  obviously 
announces  an  extended  order  of  events  stretching  onwards 
through  a  long  lapse  of  centuries  to  the  time,  whatever  that 
be,  when  Daniel  himself  is  to  '  stand  in  his  lot  at  the  end  of 
the  days.'  "  With  the  exception  of  his  error  in  referring 
"  days,"  in  this  last  clause,  to  this  "  long  lapse  of  centuries," 
and  making  Daniel  thus  to  stand  in  his  lot  at  the  end  of 
them,  instead  of  at  the  end  of  the  days  referred  to,  when  it 
is  said  that  Michael  shall  stand  up,  and  the  "  many"  arise, 
I  entirely  accord  with  this  view  of  Professor  Bush.  So  that, 
thus  far,  we  are  agreed,  pp.  135,  136. 

The  Professor  then  expresses  his  conviction,  "  that  this 
prediction  of  Daniel  (chap.  xii.  2)  ushers  in  that  new  dis- 
pensation which  was  to  be  opened  by  the  Messiah,  at  his 
death  and  resurrection,  and  which  began  more  signally  to 
verify  itself  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."  p.  135.  And 
hence  he  recognizes  an  incipient  fulfilment  of"  this  oracle," 

*  In  his  exegesis  of  the  passage  he  has  drawn  very  freely,  as  he 
acknowledges,  from  the  "  Princeton  Biblical  Repertory"  for  July, 
1844,  which  contains  a  very  able  review  of  his  "  Valley  of  Vision." 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  165 

in  the  dead  raised  by  Christ  during  his  ministry,  "  but  more 
especially  in  that  display  of  resurrection-power  which  was 
put  forth  upon"  those  mentioned  in  Matt,  xxvii.  50-53, 
Thus  far  he  supposes  that  the  words  "  may  be  construed  as 
having  r,espect  to  a  literal  resurrection."  But  this  he  re- 
gards "  as,  in  the  main,  a  mere  outward  and  sensible  ad- 
umbration of  a  far  more  glorious  work  of  moral  quickening, 
which  was  to  be  the  result  of  Christ's  accomplished  redemp- 
tion in  behalf  of  his  people,  and  in  which  this  prediction 
was  to  receive  its  more  complete  and  signal  fulfilment. 
From  age  to  age  this  spiritual  vivification  was  to  proceed  in 
connexion  with  the  'judgment  of  the  great  day,'  the  peridd 
of  the  wn  Dh)y,  the  world  to  come^^^  &c.  p.  136.  And  to 
illustrate  this  view  he  presents  some  striking  passages  from 
the  Zohar,  Midrash  Mishle,  Torafh  Adam,  R.  Saadias, 
4  Esdras  ii.  10,  &c.  We  need  not  here  examine  these  au- 
thorities, for  they  are  adduced  by  Professor  Bush  only  to 
show  that  his  view  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
period  referred  to,  was  held  also  by  the  Jews. 

After  these  references  our  author  explains  what  he  means 
by  the  "  moral  quickening"  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  ex- 
tract. He  says,  "  From  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles  we  learn  that  all  men  are  by  nature  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  in  sins  ;  and  that  the  effect  of  the  gospel,  attended 
by  the  energetic  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  to  quicken  its 
recipients  into  a  new  and  divine  life,  which,  as  it  is  a  virtual 
resurrection  while  they  are  yet  in  the  body,  issues  by  neces- 
sary consequence  in"  that  consummated  resurrection  which 
accrues  to  them  upon  their  leaving  the  body."  p.  138.  And 
after  referring  to  some  texts  in  the  New  Testament,  and  to 
the  innport  oi^ o-vda-TAo-i;  m  vai^Zv,  (all  of  which  will  be  attended 
to  in  its  proper  place,  but  by  which  the  Professor  here  de- 
signs to  show  that  Daniel  xii.  2,  must  refer  to  the  "  moral 
regeneration"  of  which  he  speaks,)  he  concludes  that  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration  does  not  teach  "  the  resurrection 
of  the  body.  If  the  prediction,"  continues  he,  "  really  finds 
its  fulfilment  in  the  resurrection  taught  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  if  it  can  be  shown,  as  we  shall  hope  shortly  to  do,  that 
this  is  a  resurrection  which  is  gradually  taking  place  from 
age  to  age,  and  one  in  which  the  spiritual  body  developed  at 
death  is  intimately  related  to  the  spiritual  life  implanted  in 
regeneration,  then  we  see  not  how  to  resist  the  conclusion 
that  this  'awaking  from  the  dead,'  announced  by  Daniel, 


166  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

points  mainly  to  a  spiritual  and  not  a  corporeal  resurrec- 
tion." p.  140.  Thus  closes  his  criticism,  and  his  attempt  to 
get  rid  of  the  testimony  of  this  plain-speaking  text.  But  let 
us  now  review  this  laboured  exposition. 

The  time  referred  to  by  Daniel,  says  the  Professor,  begun 
at  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  more  formally  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  and  is  to  extend  throughout  the 
gospel  dispensation :  and  the  resurrection  is  the  spiritual  re- 
surrection of  believers  under  the  gospel.  But  1.  If  Daniel 
xii.  refer  to  the  same  period  and  events  mentioned  in  Rev. 
XX.  (which  our  author  admits  in  his  "  Valley  of  Vision,"  no 
less  than  in  his  Anastasis,)  how  can  that  period  refer  to  the 
time  of  Christ's  resurrection,  or  to  that  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem?  When  the  Apocalypse  was  written  these  events 
were  surely  past,*  and  that  speaks  of  the  period  as  still 
future.  This  would  make  the  thousand  years  also  com- 
mence about  A.  D.  33,  or  70 ;  while  Professor  Bush  in  his 
"Millennium  of  the  Apocalypse,"  p.  101,  assigns  their 
commencement  to  be  "  somewhere  between  A.  D.  395,  and 
A.  D.  450."  The  Professor's  connecting  link,  therefore,  be- 
tween Daniel  xii.  and  Rev.  xx.  must  either  break,  or  his 
exposition  of  the  text  under  consideration  must  be  abandoned. 
The  same  argument  will  prove  that  Daniel  xii.  2,  cannot 
refer  to  the  resurrections  recorded  in  the  Gospels. 

2.  But  there  is  another  objection  which  is  utterly  sub- 
versive of  that  part  of  his  exposition  which  makes  the  "awa- 
king" spoken  of  in  Daniel,  to  be  the  moral  regeneration 
of  men  under  the  gospel,  which  Professor  Bush  regards  as 
a  resurrection  that  is  completed  when  the  spiritual  body 
is  developed  at  death.  Were  not  men  "  dead  in  sin"  be- 
fore Christ?  and  were  they  not  spiritually  regenerated  then? 
See  Genesis  vi.  3,  Isaiah  Ixiii.  10,  &c.,  &c.  And  were  not 
all  the  pious  that  then  died,  raised  from  the  dead  at  death, 
"  by  natural  law,"  according  to  Professor  Bush's  theory  ? 
The  following  extract  will  answer  this  query..  Speaking  in 
reference  to  Matthew  xxii.  31,  32,  he  says,  "  If  there  is  a 

*  The  best  chronologers  place  the  date  of  the  writing  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Baronius  places  it  in  A.  D. 
97.  Alsted  and  Pearson,  and  Mill,  and  Fabricius,  and  Zeibichius, 
Klemmius,  and  Reineccius  in  96.  So  also  Le  Clerc,  Dr.  Lardner,  Bas- 
nage,  Bishop  Tomline,  Dr.  Woodhouse,  &c.  And  all  antiquity  attests 
that  John  was  banished  to  Patmos  by  the  order  pf  Domitian  whose 
death  occurred  in  Septenober,  A.  D.  96. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  167 

palpable,  we  had  almost  said  an  unmistakable,  averment  in 
the  compass  of  holy  writ,  it  is  that  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  is  proved  from  the  fact,  that  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  were  living  when  Christ  spake  these  words,  and 
consequently  must  have  been  raised  and  must  be  living  in 
resurrection  bodies."  pp.  207,  208.  If  then  the  moral  re- 
surrection (or  regeneration)  of  man  had  been  going  on  ever 
since  the  promise  of  a  Saviour  in  Genesis  iii.,  and  if  the 
pious  entered  the  resurrection-state  so  soon  as  they  died,  then 
what  has  become  of  Professor  Bush's  magnificent  exposition 
of  Daniel  xii.  2?  He  makes  the  prophet  say  that  a  great 
event  is  to  transpire  at  a  certain  time — Behold!  there  will 
take  place  a  wonderful  event;  to  wit : — things  will  go  on 
just  as  they  have  been  going  on  ever  since  the  creation  I 
Who  can  help  thinking  of  Parturiunt  monies,  &c.?  Yet 
such  is  the  absurdity  to  which  Professor  Bush  is  driven  in 
order  to  carry  out  his  theory. 

There  are  twenty  other  objections  against  the  exposition 
of  our  author,  all  equally  fatal  to  it,  such  as,  for  example, 
the  impossibility  of  explaining  '■^sleeping  in  the  dust  of  the 
earth,"  (without  doing  the  utmost  violence  to  the  whole 
nsus  loquendi  of  the  Scrptures,)  to  refer  to  death  in  sin: 
but  the  foregoing  will  suffice.  And  the  Professor's  expo- 
sition being  thus  proved  to  be  false,  the  text  must  still  stand, 
as  it  ever  has  stood — an  unimpeached  and  unimpeachable 
witness  of  the  truth  of  the  great  Scripture  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are 
concerned,  Professor  Bush  has  done  nothing  to  invalidate 
their  testimony  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body:  nor  has  he  succeeded  in  even  the  shadow  of  an  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  the  theory  which  he  advocates. 


168  THE  RESUilRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 


CHAPTER  III. 


A    CONSIDERATION    OF    PROFESSOR    BUSH  S    REMARKS    ON    THE    NEW    TESTA- 
MENT    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    RESURRECTION. 


SECTION  I. 

Preliminary  Remarks. 

The  Professor  cornmences  his  remarks  on  this  branch  of 
the  argument  with  the  observation,  that  "the  train  of  inves- 
tigation thus  far  pursued  has,  if  we  mistake  not,  conducted 
us  to  one  important  conclusion,  viz :  that  the  teachings  of 
the  Old  Testament,  so  far  as  they  throw  Hght  at  all  on  the 
theme  of  human  destiny  in  the  world  to  come,  do  not  go 
beyond  the  announcement  of  the  simple  fact  of  a  future 
lift:^^  (p.  141:)  a  conclusion  which  we  regard  as  wholly  un- 
supported by  his  "  train  of  argumentation,"  and  the  cor- 
rectness of  which  we  are  entirely  willing  to  leave  to  the 
reader  to  determine.  Yet,  notwithstanding,  he  candidly  con- 
cedes that  "it  still  must  be  admitted,  as  natural  to  suppose, 
that  the  doctrine  declared  by  Christ  on  this  subject  (the  re- 
surrection) would  be  in  the  main  a  fuller  and  clearer  enun- 
ciation of  the  very  doctrine  so  darkly  (!)  intimated  in  the 
Jewish  Scriptures;"  {ibid.)  an  admission  which  is  based 
upon  truth,  and  which  Professor  Bush  has  beautifully  illus- 
trated in  his  ingenious  and  excellent  criticism  on  <^a)ri^iiv,  (p. 
^2,)  to  which  we  have  referred  on  a  preceding  page. 

In  Chap.  V.  Part.  II.,  (containing  these  preliminary  re- 
marks to  the  New  Testament  argument,)  he  likewise  pro- 
ceeds to  re-afRrm  his  canons  of  criticism,  (to  which  we 
have  so  fully  adverted  in  Chap.  I.  above,)  and  admits  that 
we  are  not  at  liberty  "  to  array  any  hypothetical  assump- 
tions against  the  clear  evidence  o^  facts, ^^  as  asserted  in 
the  teaching  of  Christ :  "  Yet,"  says  he,  "  we  are  at  liberty 
to  have  recourse  to  a  priori  considerations  in  fixing  the 
principles  on  which  language  that  is  intrinsically  doubtful 
is  to  be  interpreted."  p.  142.     Few,  I  suppose,  would  ques- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  169 

tion  the  propriety  of  such  a  procedure;  but  the  difficulty 
with  Professor  Bush  is  just  here;  he  does  array  "  hypo- 
thetical assumptions  against  the  clear  evidence  of  facts;" 
and  he  perpetually  insists  upon  it,  that  language  which, 
taken  by  itself  in  its  proper  connexion,  is  perfectly  plain  in 
its  import,  is  "  intrinsically  doubtful"  if  it  does  not  perfectly 
chime  in  with  his  a  priori  deductions  of  reason  and  philo- 
sophy. He  first  proves  by  these  deductions  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  language  is  "  intrinsically  doubtful,"  as  "  no  two 
truths  in  the  universe  can  conflict  with  each  other;"  and 
then  he  "  fixes  the  principles"  on  which  "  it  is  to  be  inter- 
preted" in  consistency  with  these  self-same  deductions — a 
vastly  convenient  method  by  which  to  make  the  Bible  "  a 
nose  of  wax,"  and  render  it  the  "  laughing-stock"  of  infi- 
delity. 

"  The  question,  then,"  says  the  Professor,  "  is  a  perfectly 
fair  one,  in  what  manner  the  Divine  Teacher  would  be  apt 
to  promulgate  to  the  Jews,  and  through  them  to  the  world, 
the  grand  doctrine  of  man's  future  existence.  (This  is  d 
priori  'with  a  vengeance!')  This  question  becomes  doubly 
proper  and  urgent,  if  we  may  venture  to  suppose  ourselves 
to  have  attained,  by  scientific  discovery  apart  from  revela- 
tion, a  view  of  the  subject  which  commands  assent,  but 
which  is  at  the  same  time  apparently  in  conflict  with  the 
literal  statements  of  the  Scriptures ;  for  the  case  then  be- 
comes similar  to  that  of  geology,*  where  a  reason  is  im- 
peratively required  for  the  seeming  discrepancy  between  the 
letter  of  the  sacred  record  and  the  ascertained  facts  of  sci- 
ence." p.  142.  Thus  emphatically  does  he  re-affirm  the 
principles  upon  which  his  theory  is  based ;  and  which  have 
guided  him  through  his  long  and  laborious  discussion  of 
Scripture  texts,  and  also  conducted  him  through  as  many 
vagaries  as,  we  think,  could  be  conveniently  played  off  in  a 
duodecimo  of  four  hundred  pages ! 

*  In  reference  to  this  often-repeated  assertion  of  Professor  Bush,  I 
again  distinctly  and  emphatically  remark,  that  no  geological  facts 
have  ever  been  pointed  out,  which  in  themselves  contradict  the  clear 
import  of  any  passage  of  God's  v^ord,  as  ascertained  by  the  cc- 
knowledged  principles  (not,  however,  "accommodation  principles") 
of  Scripture  criticism.  And  with  high  respect  for  his  talents  and 
learning,  I  affirm,  that  Professor  Bush  is  unable  to  produce  a  single 


instance  of  the  kind. 


15 


170  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

SECTION  II. 

Definition  of  Terms, 

In  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the  New  Testament  evi- 
dence on  the  subject  before  us,  it  is  of  great  importance  to 
ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  terms  which  are  most  fre- 
quently employed  in  relation  to  it. 

'  The  Jews  had  no  word  precisely  corresponding  with  the 
term  dvda-rncris  as  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
they  somewhat  familiarly  designate  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  by  several  words  and  phrases  in  use  in  their  Rabbinic 
dissertations.  The  most  common  of  these  are  riDipn  derived 
from  aip  to  stand  or  rise  up,  (see  Zephaniah  iii.  8,  Isaiah 
xxvi.  19,  &c.,)  and  n^nn  derived  from  n^n  <o  live,  (its  most 
ordinary  import,)  and  also  to  remain  alive;  to  revive  or 
recover.  Genesis  xx.  7  and  Isaiah  Iv.  3,  and  also  to  live 
again;  see  Ezekiel  xxvii.  5,  seq.  and  1  Kings  xvii.  22.  Yet 
were  they,  (subsequent  to  Alexander's  conquest)  familiar 
with  the  term  o-vda-nta-isy  and  frequently  employed  it  in  trans- 
lating the  terms  above-named,  as  a  reference  to  the  LXX. 
will  evince.  And  a  reference  also  to  2  Maccabees  vii.  14  ; 
and  xii.  43 — 45,  will  show  that  they  applied  the  term  directly 
to  designate  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  (Compare  also 
the  statements  in  4  Esdras  ii.  10, 13, 15,  16,  30,  31.)  They 
also  employed  the  term  avu/gtW;?  a  rising  up  again,  inter- 
changeably with  avdaTAcrts.  These  terms  therefore,  were  in 
use  among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour. 

The  apostles  and  evangelists  when  reporting  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ,  or  announcing  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, do  never  use  avd.^ia(ri;.  Once  they  employ  «>«go-/f 
(from  i-yii^ce  to  rise,  a  verb  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  also  employed  by  the  LXX.  to 
translate  my  and  also  mp,)  in  designation  of  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  Matthew  xxvii.  53;  but  ihe  term  by  which  they 
designate  the  resurrection-state  is  dvaa-Txa-tc.  And  this  term 
the  Jews  before  Christ  employed  to  designate  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  as  we  have  shown.  (See  2  Maccabees  vii. 
14,  and  xii.  43 — 45.)  This  is  the  term  employed  by  the 
inspired  apostle  in  his  report  of  the  dispute  between  Christ 
and  the  Sadducees;  (Matthew  xxii.  and  Luke  xx.,)  and  in 
this  dispute  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  term  could  have  been 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  171 

employed  out  of  its  popular  acceptation.  And  if  it  were  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  in  which  the  Jews  understood  it,  the  term 
in  the  New  Testament  must  necessarily  import  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body.  This  is  a  point  of  great  importance,  in 
determining  the  usage  of  this  word  in  the  New  Testament; 
and  of  course  Professor  Bush  can  have  nothing  to  say  either 
against  our  argument  or  inference,  as  he  constantly  affirms 
that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  "  accommodated  their  teach- 
ing to  the  views"  of  the  Jews.  As  the  Jewish  usage  of  the 
term,  therefore,  in  its  application  to  the  future  state  of  man, 
imports  the  literal  resurrection  of  his  body;  the  term  must 
include  this  in  its  signification  as  employed  by  Christ  in 
Matthew  xxii. 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  idle  to  appeal  to  the  mere  etymology 
of  the  word  (as  some  writers  do,)  in  order  to  determine  its 
import  as  used  in  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  deny  that 
it  may  he  used  in  different  senses.  It  may  mean  simply, 
erectio  post  lapsum,  or  as  Joannes  Damascenus  defines  it, 

&vda-ToiirU-y  iPejri^sL  rod  TTiTrraKOTOs  trrda-tCj    [,    e.,    CL   Second   Standing 

of  that  which  had  fallen  down;  or,  as  Bretschneider  de- 
fines it,  it  may  mean  simply  exsurgere,  (see  LXX.  in  Jere- 
miah iii.  63,  and  Zephaniah  iii.  8,)  so  far  as  the  simple 
etymology  is  concerned  ;  but  the  query  is,  what  is  its  recog- 
nized import  in  the  New  Testament  ? 

In  reference  to  the  import  of  the  word  Dr.  Dwight  re- 
marks :  "  So  far  as  I  have  observed,  it  usually  denotes  our 
existence  beyond  the  grave."  Theol.  IV.,  p.  430.  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, also,  says  that  "  in  this  view,  when  applied  to  the  dead, 
the  word  denotes,  properly,  no  more  than  a  renewal  of  life 
to  them,  in  whatever  manner  this  may  happen."  See  Note 
on  Matt.  xxii.  23.*  But  I  should  rather  have  the  reasons 
of  these  eminent  men  than  their  authority,  great  as  it  con- 
fessedly is :  for  I  am  satisfied  that  the  meaning  of  the  term, 
as  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  future  existence  of 
the  dead,  is  something  far  more  definite  than  this.  I  have 
no  design  to  write  a  dissertation ;  nor  would  I  make  the 
doctrine  under  discussion  to  depend  upon  a  definition  of  a 
term ;  but  there  are  several  things  which  I  have  not  seen 

*  I  have  been  grieved  exceedingly  to  see  the  uncandid  statement 
which  Professor  Bush  has  made  (on  pp.  209,  210)  of  the  view  of 
Dr.  Campbell,  while  purporting  to  make  an  extract  from  the  note 
above  referred  to.    The  sense  of  the  passage  is  utterly  changed. 


172       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

referred  to  in  this  connexion,  and  which  have  great  weight 
in  ascertaining  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word. 

Though  Dr.  Campbell,  in  the  note  above  quoted,  has,  for 
the  purpose  of  sustaining  himself  in  his  definition  of  the 
term,  asserted,  that  "the  Pharisees  did  not  universally  mean 
by  this  term,  the  re-union  of  soul  and  body,"  "  as  is  evi- 
dent,"  says  he,  "  from  Josephus ;"  yet,  when  his  definition 
is  out  of  his  mind,  he  candidly  admits  that  this  historian's 
representations  in  the  matter  cannot  be  fully  relied  upon. 
He  affirms,  "that  there  are  some  things,  however,  which 
would  lead  one  to  infer  that  the  opinions  of  the  Pharisees, 
on  this  article,  (the  resurrection,)  were  more  conformable  to 
Christian  doctrine,  than  is  implied  in  the  words  of  Jose- 
phus." Prelim.  Diss.  VI.,  Part  II.,  §  19.  The  authority  of 
Josephus,  therefore,  cannot  demonstrate  that  the  Pharisees 
did  not  universally  mean  by  this  term  the  re-union  of  soul 
and  body.  But  as  Dr.  Campbell  has  involved  the  matter  in 
a  mist,  so  far  as  the  Jewish  view  is  concerned,  (which  it  is 
highly  important  here  to  know,)  I  must  ask  the  reader's  at- 
tention to  a  few  remarks  touching  the  matter. 

The  Pharisees  (who,  however,  were  not  the  only  persons 
among  the  Jews  who  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection) did  unquestionably  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  trans- 
migration of  the  souls  of  the  righteous.  According  to 
Josephus,  they  believed  that  "  the  wicked  shall  be  for  ever 
detained  in  prison,  while  the  righteous  shall  be  made  to 
revive  and  live  again."  Antiq.  lib.  18,  c.  1.  They,  also, 
held  "that  all  souls  are  incorruptible;  but  it  is  the  soul  of 
the  righteous  only  which  passes  into  another  body,  while 
the   soul    of  the   wicked   abides   in   eternal    punishment:" 

KUTdiCdLiviiv  iU  iTipov  (rZ/uot  T»V  TwV  ayctBZv  juovov.,  Tiiv  S'i  tZv  (pAtJKeeV  oiiS'iu 

Ti/ua^U  ico\d^scr^M.  De  Bello  Jud.,  Lib.  II.,  c.  12.  These  pas- 
sages require  no  explanation.  If  Josephus  is  correct,  the 
Pharisees  held  that  the  soul  of  the  righteous  alone  under- 
went transmigration. 

They  believed,  also,  the  do6trine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body — but  it  was  the  resurrection  of  the  body  of  the 
righteous  alone.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  whose  acquaintance  with 
rabbinical  literature  no  one  will  dispute,  says  :  "  The  whole 
nation  did  so  generally  assert  and  hold  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  (the  Sadducees  only  excepted,)  that  they  made  the 
deniers  of  this  point  one  of  the  three  parties  that  should 
never  have  part  in  the  world  to  come:  as  they  speak  in  the 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  173 

Talmud,  in  the  Tractate  of  Sanhed.  Perek.  Helek. — 
'  These  are  they  that  have  no  portion  in  the  world  to  come; 
he  that  saith,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  not  taught  from 
the  Law;  and  he  that  saith,  that  the  Law  is  not  from  hea- 
ven ;  and  Epicures.' "  Comment,  on  Acts  iv.  2.  Works,  Vol. 
L,  p.  759,  folio.  This  clearly  expresses  their  helief  in  the 
resurrection,  as  distinct  from  the  previous  notion  of  trans- 
migration. But  the  following  passages  (for  which  I  am  in- 
debted to  Professor  Bush,  pp.  253-4)  will  express  their  view 
of  its  limitation  to  the  righteous  :  "  Kimchi  remarks,  '  The 
benefit  of  the  rain  is  common  to  the  just  and  unjust;  but 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  the  peculiar  privilege  of  those 
who  have  lived  righteously.'  "  Menasseh  Ben  Israel  says  : 
"  From  the  mind  and  opinion  then  of  all  the  ancients,  we 
conclude  that  there  will  not  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  one  common  to  all  men."  These  conflicting 
views,  thus  confusedly  mingled  in  their  theology,  we  shall 
not  undertake  here  to  reconcile:  for  it  is  not  necessary  that 
they  should  be  reconciled  in  order  to  answer  entirely  the  pur- 
pose for  which  we  have  quoted  them. 

They  held  also,  (as  the  foregoing  passages  show)  that  the 
souls  of  all,  both  righteous  and  unrighteous  were  alike  im- 
mortal, or  incorruptible.  The  language  of  Josephus  is  very 
express  "4'';t'''"»'«'^*''/"«''«^^*§'^'>'''"  De  Bell.  Lib.  IL  c.  12. 

But  though  they  admitted  so  clearly  the  future  existence, 
or, immortality  of  the  wicked,  they  never  applied  the 
TERM  dvda-Tcta-ii  TO  THAT  STATE. — They  ncver  Called  the  future 
state  or  existence  of  the  wicked  an  dvao-rao-if:*  but  apply  this 
term  strictly  and  exclusively  to  the  future  state  of  the 
righteous;  which  they  defined  to  be  a  state  of  union  of  the 
soul  with  its  former  body,  or  some  other  corporeal  structure 
into  which  it  had  passed.  The  assertion,  that  ^vda-TAo-ig  was 
employed  by  the  Jews  either  in  the  time  of  Christ  or  before 
it,  to  designate  the  future  state  of  men  without  reference  to 

*  As  a  further  illustration  and  confirmation  of  this  statement,  see 
2  Maccabees  vii.  14.  "  God  will  raise  me  again,"  says  the  pious  mar- 
tyr,  addressing  his  persecutor,  "  but  for  thee  indeed  there  is  no  resur, 
rection  unto  life."  Kat  yivo/utvog  Trpoi  to  TS\fii>Tdv,  ovtws  ea«,  AiPiTov 
fMrAXKao-a-ovretg  vTr'  rtvSgwTraiv  tol?  {ittq  <tov  Qiov  Tr^oo-jonav  iK-riJ'A;,  Trdxtv 
iyei(7T*i7i<T%dLi  liTr*  avTOV.  2c/  fx\v  yap  dvdaTcia-ic  it?  ^eeiiv  ohx.  iTrxt.  This 
was,  of  course  spoken  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  his  people,  who 
consequently  believed  in  the  future  existence  of  the  wicked,  but  not  in 
their  dvda-rcta-ti, 

15* 


174       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

their  moral  condition,  and  without  respect  to  the  reunion  of 
soul  and  body,  is,  therefore,  utterly  destitute  of  foundation. 
And  the  inference  is  plain,  that  if  such  was  not  the  usage  of 
the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ,  such  was  not  the  sense 
attached  to  the  term  by  the  Sadducees  in  Matthew  xxii.  or 
Luke  XX. ;  as  they  doubtless  employed  it  in  its  popular  sig- 
nification. And  if  they  in  their  objection  employed  it  as  we 
have  shown  above,  then  our  Saviour  employed  it  so  likewise ; 
for  had  he  changed  its  import  in  his  reply,  his  answer  would 
not  have  contained  a  refutation  of  the  Sadducees'  objection. 

Such,  too,  is  the  common  import  of  this  term  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  hence  it  is  applied  to  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  which  was  a  reunion  of  soul  and  body.  See  Acts  i. 
22,  and  ii.  31,  and  iv.  33,  and  xvii.  18,  and  Romans  i.  4,  and 
vi.  5,  Philippians  iii.  10,  1  Peter  i.  3,  and  iii.  21.  In  like 
manner  it  designates  also  those  who  were  recalled  to  life,  as 
recorded  in  the  Bible.  See  Hebrews  xi.  35,  (and  1  Kings 
xvii.  17  sq.,  2  Kings  iv.  20 — 36.)  So,  too,  those  who  de- 
nied the  resurrection  evidently  thus  employed  the  term, 
1  Corinthians  xv.  12,  for  they  doubtless  entertained  Profes- 
sor Bush's  view  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (i.  e.,  its 
reunion  with  the  soul,)  was  impossible.  Hence  they  denied 
it.  And  so,  finally,  the  classical  Athenians  clearly  under- 
stood the  term  as  employed  by  Paul.  For  had  they  attached 
to  it  the  idea  of  Drs.  Campbell  and  Dwight,  that  it  refers 
only  to  a  future  state  of  existence,  they  would  never  have 
mocked  as  they  did.  Because  the  doctrine  of  man's  immor- 
tality, or  future  existence,  they  had  already  known ;  it 
having  been  the  doctrine  of  Homer,  Socrates,  Plato,  and  all 
their  best  poets  and  philosophers.  But  they  understood  the 
term  as  conveying  the  idea  of  a  future  reunion  of  soul  and 
body,  and  hence  their  unbelief  and  mocking.  Acts  xvii.  32. 

Bretschneider  remarks,  sub  voce,  that  the  term  is  used  in 
a  two-fold  manner  in  the  New  Testament:  1.  In  reference 
to  the  return  to  life  of  those  who  had  died  a  while  before; 
and  2.  To  designate  the  return  of  all  the  dead  into  life  at 
the  end  of  all  things,  or  at  the  last  day.  Wahl  sustains  the 
same  view  of  it.  See  Lexicon,  infra  vocem. 

But  Professor  Bush  has  (pp.  144-150)  endeavoured  to 
unsettle  the  clearly  established  import  of  this  word,  in  order 
to  neutralize  the  force  of  its  testimony  in  behalf  of  the 
great  doctrine  which  he  opposes.  He  exhibits  a  great  deal 
of  learning  in  explaining  and  illustrating  its  etymology,  and 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  175 

talks  much  about  ^vd  and  'lo-rnf^h  and  o-ma-K  and  mcrtufxr^  and 
quotes  many  instances  of  the  usage  of  this  verb,  (pp.  144, 
145,)  but  none  to  illustrate  the  usage  q^  i.va<rTct<n?  itself.  And 
then  from  all  these  etymologies,  &c.,  &c.,  he  com^s  to  the 
conclusion  that  6.va<rrAaig  itself  means  no  more  than  simple 
*^reviviscence,  without  any  reference  to  the  rising  again  of 
the  defunct  body.^^  But  what  is  the  use  of  all  this  display 
and  learning  to  prove  what  no  one  denies?  Who  doubts 
that  the  import  of  ^va  and  lo-rufxi,  &c.,  &c.,  is  what  Professor 
-'Bush  states  it  to  be?  The  views  offered  by  him  on  this  sub- 
ject may  be  found  in  every  Greek  lexicon  in  the  universe. 
The  question  is  not  one  of  derivation,  or  of  etymology;  for 
our  author  knows  that  all  agree  on  that  subject ;  but  it  is  a 
question  as  to  usage.  And  to  attempt  to  settle  questions  as 
to  usage  J  by  mere  etymologies,  is  what  one  would  hardly 
expect  from  a  tyro,  (much  less  from  Professor  Bush,)  in 
this  advanced  state  of  philological  literature.  Nothing  can 
be  more  fallacious.  The  etymology  of  a  word  often  pre- 
sents a  meaning  clearly  and  directly  contrary  to  its  univer- 
sally acknowledged  import  in  a  usage  which  is  confessedly 
correct. 

I  have  remarked,  that  the  word  as  employed  by  the 
Jews,  and  in  New  Testament  usage,  when  applied  with  re- 
ference to  those  whose  soul  and  body  are  separated,  clearly 
imports  a  re-union  of  body  and  soul — the  living  of  the 
body  in  vnion  with  the  soul.  That  this  may  be  apparent  to 
the  reader,  I  shall  refer  to  every  instance  of  the  use  of  the 
word  in  the  New  Testament.  Unless  I  err  it  is  employed 
therein  forty-two  times :  and  let  the  reader  try  if  he  can 
find  an  instance  among  them  all,  of  its  reference  to  the 
future  state  of  the  dead,  where  it  does  not  clearly  import  a 
re-union  of  body  and  soul.  The  instances  of  its  use  are 
the  following:  Matt.  xxii.  23,  28,  30,  31;  Mark  xii.  18,  33; 
Luke  ii.  34,  and  xiv.  14,  and  xx.  27,  33,  35,  36;  John  v. 
29,  (twice,)  and  xi.  24,  25;  Acts  i.  22,  and  ii.  31,  and  iv. 
2,  33,  and  xvii.  18,  32,  and  xxiii.  6,  8,  and  xxiv.  15,  21, 
and  xxvi.  23;  Rom.  i.  4,  and  vi.  5;  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  13,  21, 
42;  Phil.  iii.  10;  2  Tim.  ii.  18;  Heb.  vi.  2,  and  xi.  35, 
(twice);  1  Pet.  i.  3,  and  iii.  21;  Rev.  xx.  5,  6.  It  is  also 
used  once  in  composition  with  ^h  i^AvdcrTAcrtc,  Phil.  iii.  11, 
where  it  refers  to  the  first  resurrection,  which  is  a  resur- 
rection from  among  the  dead  ones. 

Of  all  these  instances  there  are  but  two  whose  meaning 


176  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

is  at  all  obscure,  and  neither  of  which  makes  any  thing  for 
the  Professor's  theory.  The  first  is  Luke  ii.  34;  oZto?  kutou 
iU  TTraxrit  xst)  avarTA(nv  ttokkZv  iv  tco  'itr^otwx.  "  He  is  appointed  for 
(stf  is  here  used  merely  to  denote  the  end  or  destination)  the 
fall  and  rise  of  many  in  Israel."  Wolzogenius  renders  it, 
*'  Positus  est  in  ruinam  et  resurrectionem,''''  &c.,  and  ob- 
serves: <'Interpretum  quidam  ruinam  hancet  resurrectionem 
de  seterno  interitu  damnationis,  et  de  resurrectione  ad  vitam 
seternam  intelligunt;  quod  utrumque  illud,  quod  proecessit, 
necessario  sequitur.  Nam  qui  eo  modo,  quo  explicatum  est, 
cadunt,  eorum  vestigia  sequitur  seternus  interitus ;  qui  vero 
superius  dicto  modo  resurgunt,  illi  etiam  ad  vitam  seternam 
resurgent." 

The  other  is  John  xi.  25.  Jesus  saith  unto  her  «>- ««/«/ » 
dvaa-Tito-zf  Kctt » (fax',  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life:"*  But 
this  merely  means  as  Grotius  remarks.  "  I  am  the  author  of 
the  resurrection,"  or  as  Wolzogenius  observes,  "  causa  re- 
surrectionis  et  vitse,  seu  effector  ejus  et  dator."  It  is  a  He- 
brseism,  in  which  the  effect  is  put  for  the  cause,  or  the  cause 
is  signified  by  the  effect.  See  also  John  i.  4.  In  like  man- 
ner Christ  is  said  to  be  made  to  us  "wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification,"  &c.,  1  Corinthians  i.  30.  The  usage  of  the 
term  therefore  is  uniform  in  the  New  Testament,  and,  as 
there  employed,  clearly  announces  the  living  again  of  the 
body,  and  its  reunion  with  the  soul. 

In  another  part  of  his  book,  (p.  253,)  Professor  Bush  has 
referred  to  the  passage  which  we  have  above  quoted  from 
Josephus,  and  endeavours  to  give  it  a  turn  that  would  seem 
to  favour  his  tertium  quid  theory.     As  the  objection  has  the 

*  In  the  Midrash  Mishle^  fol.  67.  (See  also  Buxtorf 's  Lexicon  Tal- 
mud, p.  961,)  there  is  the  following  remarkable  expression  respecting 
Messiah.  After  the  remark  that  he  is  the  second  Adam  who  should 
restore  the  life  and  happiness  which  the  first  Adam  forfeited,  they, 
referring  to  Psalm  Ixxii.  17,  ask  "Why  is  his  name  called  ]ijji? — Be- 
cause he  shall  hereafter  raise  the  sleepers  in  the  dust.''''  How  like  the 
name  which  Jesus  takes  to  himself  in  the  above-quoted  text  I  So  also 
in  Neve  Shallom.  lib.  9,  cap.  5, 8,  the  old  Jews  speak  as  follows :  "The 
Messiah  is  the  last  Adam,  who  will  be  greater  than  Moses,  and  above 
the  ministering  angels.  He  will  take  away  the  old  sin  (comp.  John 
i.  29,)  which  brought  death,  and  in  his  days  shall  be  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead.  (Comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  21.)  God  intended  in  the  creation  of 
Adam  that  he  should  be  immortal ;  but  sin  brought  death  upon  him; 
and  therefore  the  divine  intention,  which  was  not  accomplished  in  the 
first  Adam,  is  fulfilled  in  King  Messias." 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  177 

appearance  of  ingenuity,  it  is  proper  to  notice  it  in  this  con- 
nexion before  passing  to  the  next  topic.  He  says,  "It  is 
obvious  that  the  phrase  nATxCxivm  m  iri^ov  a-Zfxny  to  pass  into 
another  body"  does  not  imply  the  doctrine  of  the  transmigra- 
tion of  souls ;  but  that  "  it  yields  as  readily  the  sense  of  a  trans- 
lation of  the  soul  into  an  etherial  or  spiritual  body,  such  as  we 
have  endeavoured  to  show  is  taught  by  the  united  voice  of 
sound  reasoning  and  sound  hermeneutics."  When  we  view 
this  statement  in  connexion  with  Professor  Bush's  "  knowledge 
of  revelation  progressive,"  and  his  doctrine  of  "the  resurrec- 
tion body  as  inferred  by  reason,"  and  the  advance  of  science 
and  scientific  discovery,  we  certainly  cannot  but  be  amazed 
at  the  wonderful  knowledge  here  attributed  to  this  ancient  sect 
of  Jewish  separatists.  Well  might  they  boast  that  they  were 
the  favourites  of  heaven,  on  account  of  their  accurate  know, 
ledge  of  the  truths  of  religion,  and  "  despise  others"  (Luke 
xi.  52,  and  xviii.  9,  11,)  if  such  were  their  wonderful  attain- 
ments. To  have  anticipated,  so  long  before  Christ,  the  re- 
sults of  present  "scientific  investigation"  was  certainly  a 
great  deal ;  nor  can  I  imagine  how  Professor  Bush  can  pos- 
sibly avoid  the  conclusion  that  their  sect  must  have  had 
among  them  true  prophets  of  their  own.  And  we  might  well 
ask,  that  as  they  had  the  true  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and 
as  their  doctrine  was  very  popular  among  the  Jews  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  how  it  happened  that  he  never  appealed  to 
them  as  supporting  the  true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as 
taught  by  him,  when  such  an  appeal  must  have  silenced 
even  his  most  clamorous  enemies?  And  we  might  also  ask, 
Where  was  the  necessity  of  his  "  accommodating  his  teach- 
ings" to  the  errors  of  the  Jews  on  this  subject,  when  their 
greatest  and  most  opulent  sect  had  already  avowed  the  real 
truth  ?  It  would  appear  that  the  disciples  also,  before  they 
were  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  gospel,  had  the  idea  that 
the  soul  "  passed  into  another  body;"  (see  John  9,)  and  if 
they  entertained  the  idea  that  this  «Vf§cv  a-Z/ua.  or  other  body 
was  a  tertivm  quid,  or  a  "spiritual  body,"  as  Professor  Bush 
thinks  Josephus  means,  then  they  must  have  thought  that 
the  then  present  ^n^ov  a-Zy-n  of  the  man  born  blind,  must  have 
been  a  spiritual  body,  or  a  tertium  quid,  and  that  tertium 
quids  might  be  born  like  other  bodies,  and  even  be  blind,  and 
be  cured  by  an  anointing  of  clay. 

But  raillery  apart,  may  I  not  with  reason  ask,  whether  a 
man  is  warranted,  in  order  to  support  a  mere  theory,  thus 


178      THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

to  set  philology  and  history  at  perfect  defiance;  and  im- 
pose an  utterly  unheard  of,  and  altogether  arbitrary  signifi- 
cation on  a  phrase,  the  true  import  of  which  no  one  has 
ever  dreamed  of  doubting?  Where  in  the  writings  of  Jo- 
sephus,  or  Philo,  or  in  the  LXX.,  or  New  Testament  will 
Professor  Bush  find  a  tertium  quid  designated  by  such  a 
phrase?  But  he  not  only  sets  philology  at  defiance,  but  his 
own  theory  also.  For  in  his  book  he  is  perpetually  labour- 
ing to  prove  that  the  tertium  quid  in  man  is  enclosed,  so  to 
speak,  in  his  corporeal  frame ;  and  that  it  itself  envelopes 
the  spirit,  or  the  "bodiless  and  formless  Twews;"  and  that 
this  tertium  quid^  which  encloses  the  spirit,  is  eliminated 
from  the  body  at  death.  It  encases  the  spirit  while  it  is  in 
the  body;  it  encases  it  at  its  discharge  from  the  body;  and 
it  encases  it  after  it  has  left  the  body.  Where,  then,  can 
there  be  any  going  into  another  body? 

But  with  all  deference  to  the  authority  of  Professor  Bush, 
I  deny  that  it  is  upon  the  authority  of  this  passage  of  Jo- 
sephus  alone  that  the  Pharisees  have  been  charged  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  metempsychosis.  If  they  did  entertain  this 
doctrine,  then  Professor  Bush  must  admit  that  his  explana- 
tion of  «T«§«v  a-ZfxA  is  unnatural  and  absurd.  Does  not  Jo- 
sephus,  therefore,  in  other  places,  assert  that  they  held  this 
doctrine?  See  Antiq.,  lib.  18,  cap.  1,  §.3.  and  De  Bell.,  lib. 
2,  cap.  8,  §.  14,  and  lib.  3,  cap.  8,  §.  5.  Take,  also,  the 
testimony  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  in  the  LXX.,  chap.  viii. 
20,  where  the  speaker  says,  that  by  "  being  upright  he  came 
into  a  pure  or  undefiled  body:"  /waxxov  S'l  ayABog  ^.v  HxBov  ik  o-Zy-a 
&/uiAVTov.  Professor  Bush  would  hardly  believe  that  this  un- 
defiled body  was  a  ^Hertium  quid^  That  the  Jews  in  our 
Saviour's  time  entertained  the  same  doctrine,  appears  from 
the  fact,  that  during  his  ministry  they  speculated  much  con- 
cerning his  identity  with  some  of  their  former  prophets. 
Some  thought  it  was  the  soul  of  Elijah  which  animated 
him,  and  performed  the  great  works  which  they  saw;  others 
Jeremiah,  and  others  "one  of  the  old  prophets ;"  (see  Matt, 
xvi.  14,  and  Luke  ix.  19;  see,  also,  John  ix.  1-4;)  but  no 
one  for  a  moment  seemed  to  have  any  idea  that  the  body 
thus  inhabited  was  a  tertium  quid,  or  spiritual  body.  And 
their  attempted  assassination  of  a  tertium  quid,  (had  they 
believed  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  such,)  must  at  all  events 
argue  that  they  supposed  there  must  be  but  little  real  differ- 
ence between  a  sTg^ov  o-::^*  and  e^^g*  <^«§|«  See  Jude  7. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  179 

The  New  Testament  usage  of  <ivaVT*«r/?,  therefore,  when 
that  term  refers  to  man's  future  existence,  uniformly  infers 
a  re-union  of  soul  and  body:  and  all  Jewish  antiquity  unites 
to  testify  that  such  was  its  universally  received  acceptation 
in  apostolic  times. 

Another  term  which  Professor  Bush  makes  the  most  con- 
stant use  of  throughout  his  work,  and  to  which  he  attaches 
the  highest  importance  in  this  discussion,  is  <rw^«  ^£y^*T«oy, 
spiritual  body;  which  occurs  in  1  Cor.  xv.  44;  and  the  an- 
tithesis of  which  is  <^-/"*  4'^;t""=''>  animal^  or  natural  body; 
see  V.  46.  And  in  order  that  the  subject  may  be  plain  to 
every  reader,  I  shall,  in  the  Jirst  place,  exhibit  the  view 
which  the  Professor  takes  of  the  phrase;  and  then  shall  ex- 
plain what  I  conceive  to  be  its  biblical  import.  It  is  easy 
to  perceive,  that  as  this  o-Z^^a  TrvtufxArmov  is  the  tertium  quid  of 
our  author,  so  very  much  must  depend  upon  our  obtaining 
an  accurate  view  of  it  before  we  proceed  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament argument. 

"TAe  spiritual  body^^^ — what  is  it  according  to  Professor 
Bush's  theory?  His  definition  itself  seems  to  need  an  ex- 
positor, or  at  least  an  illustration,  to  make  it  plain.  It  is 
"  the  life  and  the  intelligence"  "  which  conjointly  constitute 
the  essence  of  man,"  and  which  retire  as  the  body  dies.  It 
is  a  "  vital  principle,  pervading  the  whole  frame,  and 
which  co-exists  with  the  intellectual  principle  in  the  body; 
and  which,  therefore,  may  co-exist  out  of  the  body."  "  It 
is  a  psychical  body,^^  p.  66.  It  is  formed  of  those  "  subtle 
elements  mixed  up  in  the  grosser  materials  of  our  bodies, 
with  which  our  mental  operations  are  connected,  and  upon 
which  they  are  dependent,"  p.  77.  "  By  spiritual,  in  this 
connexion,  we  mean  refined,  ethereal,  sublimated.  By  the 
development  of  a  spiritual  body,  we  mean  the  disengage- 
ment— the  extrication — of  that  psychical  part  of  our  nature, 
with  which  vital  and  animal  functions  are,  in  the  present 
life,  intimately  connected,  and  which  differs  from  the  pure 
spirit,  the  intellectual  principle,  as  the  Greek  4^'a:«>  or  sensi- 
tive principle,  differs  from  voD?,  the  self-conscious  intelli- 
gence. It  is  a  tertium  quid — an  intermediate  something 
between  the  cogitative  faculty  and  the  gross  body.  It  is 
indeed  invisible;  but  so  are  many  of  the  mightiest  agents  in 
nature,  and  so  are  many  of  the  noblest  entities  in  the  ranks 
of  created  beings."  p.  78.  The  definition  is  not  sufficiently 
clear  yet;  we  cannot  exactly  see  the  Professor's  meaning; 


180"  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

and  so  shall  let  him  speak  further.  "  This  existence  (z.  e, 
the  resurrection  state)  will  indeed  be  in  a  body,  but  it  will 
be  a  spiritual  body;  i.  e.,  some  exceedingly  refined  and 
ethereal  substance,  unth  which  the  vital  principle  is  con- 
nectedf^^  p.  145.  But  on  page  66  he  says  that  the  spiritual 
body  is  itself  this  "  vital  principle  pervading  the  whole 
frame,. and  co-existing  with  the  intellectual  principle  in  the 
body."  If,  then,  it  is  the  vital  principle  itself,  how  can 
it  be  something  "  with  which  the  vital  principle  is  con- 
nected?" We  must  look  still  further  at  the  Professor's  defi- 
nitions. Much  have  I  desired  that  some  Ariadne  would 
only  grant  a  clew  of  thread,  by  which  to  guide  me  through 
the  intricacies  of  this  puzzling  labyrinth ;  for  my  friend, 
the  author,  has  really  tired  me  by  keeping  me  in  chase  so 
long  after  what  might  be  properly  called  a  mere  tertium 
quid  of  an  idea.  Perhaps  the  following  incidental  remark 
may  help  us :  "  Even  in  the  present  life,  it  is  the  spiritual 
body  which  feels  the  sensations  of  pleasure  or  pain."  p.  264. 
Then,  again  he  says :  "  The  only  germ  in  the  human  body 
answering  to  the  germ  in  the  plant,  and  upon  which  the 
apostles'  comparison  is  built,  is  the  spiritual  body  itself. ^^ 
p.  179.  Then  it  enters  the  spiritual  world  as  a  germ,  or 
nucleus,  and  elaborates  for  itself  a  spiritual  corporeity  from 
the  spiritual  elements  by  which  it  is  surrounded,  pp.  176— 
181.  See  other  remarks  hereupon,  and  other  definitions,  in 
Part  I.,  Chap.  II.  above. 

On  what  principle  it  is  expected  that  a  person  is  to  get  an 
idea  out  of  this  mass  of  nonsense  I  cannot  really  imagine : 
and  yet  Professor  Bush  expects  us  to  understand  him  here, 
in  order  to  appreciate  his  argument,  and  see  the  appropriate- 
ness of  his  use  of  the  term  in  question.  If  he  has  had  any 
idea  on  this  subject,  he  certainly  has  failed  to  employ  lan- 
guage by  which  it  might  be  conveyed  to  others.  But  as  we 
cannot  get  hold  of  the  abstract  definition,  perhaps  we  can  of 
his  illustrations  of  it.  He  asserts  that  Christ,  and  the  righ- 
teous dead  all  have  spiritual  bodies;  while  he  denies  that  the 
wicked  have  any ;  and  asserts  that  they  never  rise  again. 
Here  then  we  have  an  affirmative,  and  also  a  negative  illus- 
tration. Let  us  briefly  consider  each,  and  see  if  we  can 
understand  the  nature  of  this  tertium  quid. 

With  respect  to  the  spiritual  bodies  of  the  righteous.  Pro- 
fessor Bush  affirms  that  they  are  the  same  substantially  as 
the   resurrection  body  of  Christ.  See  pp.  271,  347,   348; 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  181 

And  yet  Christ's  body  did  not  "enter  the  spiritual  world  as 
a  germ.'''*  He  admits  also,  that  the  soul  or  spirit  of  Christ 
was  living  between  his  death  and  resurrection,  pp.  168,  220, 
224,  and  yet  avers  that  his  spiritual  body  did  not  arise,  or 
was  not  eliminated  until  the  third  day.  pp.  163,  164,  261. 
He  arose  on  the  third  day,  and  yet  his  material  body  arose 
not.  pp.  163,  164,  168.  And  at  death  he  entered  at  once 
into  a  spiritual  body.  p.  165.  His,  was  a  purely  spiritual 
body,  p.  156.  Such  is  the  affirmative  illustration  of  what 
Professor  Bush  means  hy  ^^f^^'^vivy-An^ntov.  The  illustration, 
like  the  decision  of  Milton's  Old  Chaos,  only  "  more  embroils 
the  fray,"  and  makes  "confusion  worse  confounded." 

But  perhaps  the  negative  illustration,  taken  from  the  state 
of  the  wicked  in  a  future  world  may  help  us.  Throughout 
his  whole  book  he  constantly  denies  that  they  arise  from  the 
dead,  or  possess  this  tertium  quid  or  resurrection  body.  If, 
therefore,  we  can  only  ascertain  how  they  exist  without  it, 
perhaps  we  shall  be  able  to  ascertain  what  it  is. 

Now  it  is  clear,  according  to  Professor  Bush,  that  the 
wicked  do  not  exist  in  material  bodies — yet  they  continue  to 
live  after  the  body  dies,  pp.  140,  141,  220,  232,  and  yet  do 
not  partake  of  the  resurrection,  (for  the  righteous  alone  are 
the  subjects  of  it,)  and  they  have  no  spiritual  body  eliminated 
at  death;  for  such  elimination  is,  in  fact,  says  Professor 
Bush,  the  resurrection,  pp.  232,  254,  312.  Neither  are  the 
wicked,  in  a  future  state,  "  mere  bodiless  and  formless  mensy'* 
says  he,  for  "  no  error  is  greater  than  to  suppose,  that  at 
death  the  soul  goes  forth  from  the  body  as  a  hare  power  of 
thought — bodiless  and  formless  mens;^^ — this,  continues  he, 
"  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  is  nothing  more  than  sheer  hy- 
pothesis." p.  72.  And  yet,  after  death  they  reside  in  "  spir- 
itual tenements,"  and  have  "  bodies,"  and  suffer  unspeakable 
misery,  pp.  393,  395.  Here  then  is  the  negative  illustra- 
tion/ The  fastidiousness  of  this  age  will  not  allow  us  to 
call  any  thing  nonsensical  which  a  learned  man  asserts; 
but  if  it  did,  I  should  pronounce  the  whole  of  what  Prcffessor 
Bush  has  said  on  the  subject  of  the  spiritual  body,  (in  this 
his  effort  to  evade  the  clear  announcements  of  revelation,) 
the  hugest  and  most  astoundingly  nonsensical  medley  that 
ever  "  the  progress  of  science,"  and  the  fertile  genius  of  the 
nineteenth  century  has  produced.  If  it  is  the  spiritual  body 
— the  same  which  feels  pleasure  or  pain  in  this  life,  (see  p. 
264,) — that  is  eliminated  at  death,  and  which  constitutes  the 

16 


182       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

vital  principle,  I  should  like  to  know  on  what  ground  it  is 
denied  to  the  wicked?  Have  they  no  vital  principle?  If 
not  how  is  it  that  they  live  at  all  after  death  ?  How  is  it 
that  they  feel  the  sensations  of  pleasure  or  pain  in  this  life, 
if  it  is  the  spiritual  body  or  tertium  quid  that  feels  those  sen- 
sations? And  as  this  tertium  quid  is  the  resurrection  body, 
which  belongs  to  the  righteous  alone,  when  do  they  become 
possessed  of  it  ?  Not  until  they  are  regenerated  ?  And  do  they 
then  feel  no  pleasure  or  pain  until  they  are  regenerated? 
But  if  the  wicked  have  this  tertium  quid,  or  resurrection 
body,  what  becomes  of  it  when  they  die  ?  Professor  Bush 
says  it  is  not  eliminated  from  the  body,  like  that  of  the  righ- 
teous, for  this  would  be  a  resurrection.  What  then  becomes 
of  it  ?  It  would  be  trifling  with  the  reader's  patience  to  press 
this  matter. 

The  properties  of  this  spiritual  body,  or  tertium  quid  of 
Professor  Bush's  theory,  remind  one  very  strongly  of  the 
account  of  the  learned  traveller  mentioned  in  the  way  of 
illustration  by  President  Edwards.*  For  the  Professor  has 
discovered  a  creature  that  cannot  exist  without  a  body,  and 
yet  has  not  a  body,  and  notwithstanding  it  still  exists.  And 
though  it  has  not  a  body,  yet  it  has  a  body;  and  the  very 
body  which  it  does  not  possess,  that  self-same  body  it  does 
possess ;  and  this  though  it  neither  has  nor  has  not  a  body. 
At  death  it  goes  into  another  body,  and  yet  it  does  not  go 
into  another  body,  for  it  is  itself  that  self-same  body  into 
which  it  goes.  It  is  always  "  exhaled"  at  the  death  of  the 
body,  for  as  it  is  the  vital  principle  itself,  while  it  continues 
in  the  body  the  body  must  be  alive;  and  yet  the  body  may 
truly  die,  and  lie  in  the  grave  three  days,  without  such  an 

*  "  If  some  learned  philosopher,  who  had  been  abroad,  in  giving 
an  account  of  the  curious  observations  he  had  made  in  his  travels, 
should  say  '  he  had  been  in  Terra  del  Fuego,  and  there  had  seen  an 
anima^,  which  he  calls  by  a  certain  name,  that  begat  and  brought 
forth  itself,  and  yet  had  a  sire  and  dam  distinct  from  itself;  that 
it  had  tn  appetite,  and  was  hungry,  before  it  had  a  being ;  that  his 
master  who  led  him,  and  governed  him  at  his  pleasure,  was  always 
governed  by  him,  and  driven  by  him  where  he  pleased ;  that  when 
he  moved,  he  always  took  a  step  before  the  first  step ;  that  he  went 
with  his  head  first,  and  yet  always  went  tail  foremost;  and  this, 
though  he  had  neither  head  nor  tail ;'  it  would  be  no  impudence  at 
all,  to  tell  such  a  traveller,  though  a  learned  man,  that  he  himself 
had  no  idea  of  such  an  animal  as  he  gave  an  account  of,  and  never 
had,  nor  ever  would  have."    Freedom  of  the  Will,  Part  IV.  Sect.  2. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  183 

elimination  or  exhalation.  It  belongs  to  the  righteous  alone, 
and  yet  all  the  unrighteous  possess  it  who  have  also  "  spiri- 
tual tenements,"  which  leave  their  physical  bodies  when 
they  die,  and  yet  do  not  leave  them,  for  they  have  no  spiri- 
tual bodies  eliminated  at  death.  If  such  be  the  theory  by 
which  the  objections  of  reason  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection are  to  be  obviated,  and  that  doctrine  rendered  pala- 
table to  philosophers,  sit  anima  mea  non  mm  Philosophis, 

But  what  is  the  true  scriptural  import  of  ff-^/"*  Trvivf^a.^iKov'i 
The  phrase  occurs  twice  in  1  Cor.  xv.  44,  and  is  used  in 
antithesis  to  o-Zf^a,  ^vxik-ov,  v.  46.  In  the  same  connexion  it 
is  spoken  of  as  a  <^^/"*  a<^Bu^rov,  (v.  42, 52,  54,)  a  body  which 
is  immortal  like  the  spirit  which  shall  inhabit  it.  It  is  also 
a  <rZfA.A  iv  S-o^n  and  ^v  <PuvdfAii,  a  glorious  body,  not  subject  to 
sickness,  or  disease,  or  weakness,  v.  43.  It  is,  also,  a  o-Z^ix 
iTTov^dviov,  V.  47,  48;  a  body  adapted  in  all  respects  to  a  hea- 
venly state:  and  those  who  possesss  it  are  "  like  the  an- 
gels," ^Vd;.^eAo/  ya^  iia-i,  Luke  XX.  36.  It  is,  also,  to  be  like 
the  glorious  body  of  Christ;  o/^om  alrZ  i<rofxiBu.  i  John  iii.  2  : 
*'  Our  vile  body  shall  be  made  like  his  glorious  body;"  tw 
a-ce/MiTi  TiicJ'o^ns  Avrod;  Phil.  iii.  21.  It  is,  also,  a  clothing  of  cor- 
ruption with  incorruption ;  to  Bvhtov  roZro  ivS'ua-nTcu  abAVAo-Ui^  1  Cor. 
XV.  53,  54. 

Then,  also,  it  is  spoken  of  as  the  antithesis  o^<rZfAA-\vxntcvy 
as  above  stated ;  which  is,  as  Schoetgen  remarks,  corpus 
caducum^  mortale,  "  a  frail  and  mortal  body."  And  its 
synonyms  also  are  <i>6«§tsv,  6v*»tov,  and  <p()o^a,  aTijutny  da-Stvda,  and 
i*  >«?,  A:'<xof.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  42,  43,  44,  47,  53,  54.  Now 
•i''^X*>  (from  which  comes  4''A:'*^f»)  is  employed  by  the  Greeks 
to  signify  that  which  man  has  in  common  with  brute  ani- 
mals. And,  as  Josephus  (Antiq.,  lib.  I.,  c.  1.  §  2.)  remarks, 
that  God  made  Adam  with  a  5rv«y^a  and  a  4''A:».*  Where 
TTvevfAct  indicates  what  pertained  to  man  as  man,  and  4'^x,>^> 
what  was  common  alike  to  him  and  other  animals ;  the 
former  plainly  referring  not  only  to  his  anima,  or  life  by 
which  he  lives  as  an  animal,  but  also  emphatically  his  ani' 
mus,  or  spirit,  which  is  endowed  with  the  faculty  of  under- 
standing, knowing,  and  thinking ;  whereas  the  latter  refers 

*    "ETXstO-SV  0  QiOC   TOV    avB^CDTTOV  X°^v   Slttq  rJiC  yH?   \ttCZv  Kct)  miv/uct  WMV 

&vrZ,  Ka)  -^vxiiv.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  Josephus  believed  man  to  be 
formed  of  <rZ/uci,  -^l^v^iiy  and  Trvsy^a,  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  See  1  Thess. 
V.  23. 


184  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

to  those  passions,  desires,  and  feelings,  &c.,  which  we  have 
in  common  with  other  animals.  Krebbs,  in  his  ^^Observa- 
tiones,'^  has  excellently  illustrated  this  difference,  and  at 
greater  length  than  our  space  will  here  allow.  See  pp.  346- 
8,  and  411. 

In  exact  accordance  with  this  criticism  on  the  etymology 
of  the  word,  do  we  find  its  usage  in  the  New  Testament. 
A  single  remark  from  Schoetgen  (sub  voce)  will  justify  this 
declaration,  without  wasting  time  to  prove  it  by  references. 
''  In  Nov.  Testament,  -i^x^  notat  animam  hominis  non  re- 
geniti."  This  term  in  the  New  Testament  refers  to  the  soul 
of  the  "  unrenewed  man,"  or  the  man  in  a  state  of  nature. 
And  hence  4''A:'*3c  o-wfxx  is  a  natural  or  animal  body, — a  body 
subject  to,  and  under  the  control  of  mere  animal  or  natural 
passions  and  appetites  like  the  brutes.  Thus  Jude  10  em- 
ploys it.  See  also  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  And  if,  therefore,  the  spiri- 
tual body  is  the  antithesis  of  the  natural  or  animal  body, 
(which  is  undeniable,)  it  cannot  mean  a  body  which  is 
purely  spirit,  or  a  tertium  quid,  but  simply  a  body  ruled  by 
the  spirit,  and  adapted  to  spiritual  uses.  And  all  the  attri- 
butes of  this  body,  to  which  we  have  referred  above,  import 
not  the  most  distant  idea  of  the  abolition  of  its  previously 
existing  corporeity;  but  merely  the  abolishing  of  its  animal 
functions,  and  a  change  from  a  mortal  condition  into  an  im- 
mortal. 

A  further  consideration  of  the  subject  will  confirm  this 
view.  The  quality  of  the  o-Z^ct,  must  of  course  depend  on 
the  import  attached  to  -rviv^ATiicov.  This  word  is  not  em- 
ployed to  designate  a  thing  whose  essence  is  spirit,  but,  as  in 
Rom.  i.  11,  where  it  means  gifts  supplied  by  the  Spirit,  and 
not  gifts  whose  essence  is  spirit;  and  thus  in  Rom.  vii.  14, 
c  vifAos  Trviu/AcLTMOi  io-mv,  does  not  mean  a  law  whose  essence  is 
spirit,  but  whose  precepts  are  agreeable  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
So,  also,  we  find  mentioned  "  spiritual  blessings,"  Eph.  i.  3, 
and  "  spiritual  songs,"  in  Eph.  v.  19,  and  Col.  iii.  16.  And 
thus  *' 5/?iriiwaZ"  understanding,"  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  means  an 
understanding  that  can  appreciate  spiritual  things.  Hence 
the  TTViv^artKoi  are  those  who  are  renewed,  illuminated,  and 
governed  by  the  Spirit,  1  Cor.  ii.  13,  15,  and  iii.  1,  and  xiv. 
37,  and  Gal.  vi.  1;  and  TaTrviu/^AriKo,  are  those  things  supplied 
or  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  see  Rom.  xv.  27;  1  Cor.  ii.  13, 
and  ix.  11,  and  xii.  1,  and  xiv.  1. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  185 

These  remarks  may  serve  to  show  with  what  latitude  the 
term  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament.  And  they  evince 
that  any  argument,  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body  that 
dies,  based  upon  the  apostle's  use  of  the  term  spiritual,  is 
inconclusive  and  absurd.  The  reader  will  find  the  exposi- 
tion which  I  have  above  given  of  the  term  TrviufAATuii  fully 
sustained  by  Schoetgen,  Bretschneider,  and  Wahl,  (see  also 
Bretschneider's  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  411, 
413,)  and  by  Stokius,  &c.,  &c.  And  if  we  leave  the  lexi- 
cographers, we  still  find  equally  strong  support.  Professor 
Bush  himself  lends  us  his  aid  :  '*  The  original  term,  Trviv/ua.- 
'TtKOi,  (says  he,)  is  derived  from  7rviu^«t  spirit,  and  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  dominant  usage  of  this  word  by  the  sacred 
writers,  is  not  in  opposition  to  material,  but  to  carnal,  as 
when  it  is  said,  *  The  spirit  is  willing,  but  the  fesh  is 
weak.'  "  p.  66.  "  It  is  called  a  spiritual  body,"  says  Ro- 
senmiiller,  "  because  it  is  adapted  to  a  spirit,  and  because  its 
powers  are  far  beyond  what  are  requisite  for  the  transaction 
of  mere  earthly  affairs :"  in  loco.  Calvin's  remarks,  i?i  loco, 
(1  Cor.  XV.  44,)  are  also  very  excellent;  but  we  omit  quoting 
them  in  order  to  present  a  more  ancient,  and  equally  excel- 
lent view  of  it.  Speaking  of  the  phrase  spirituale  corpus, 
Augustine  (Cont.  Adimant.,  cap.  12)  remarks ;  "  Quod  spiri- 
tuale dixit  corpus  in  resurrectione  futurum,  non  propterea 
putandum  est  quod  non  corpus  sed  spiritus  erit :  sed  spiri- 
tuale corpus  omnimodo  spiritui  subditum  dicit,  sine  aliqua 
corruptione  vel  modo.  Non  enim  quia  quod  modo  habemus 
corpus  animale  appellat,  ideo  putandum  est,  non  illud  esse 
corpus,  sed  animam.  Ergo  quemadmodum  corpus  animale 
nunc  dicitur,  quia  subditum  est  animse :  spirituale  autem  dici 
Dondum  potest,  quia  nondum  spiritui  plene  subjectum  est, 
quamdiu  corrumpi  potest :  sic  et  tunc  spirituale  vocabitur 
cum  spiritui  atque  eeternitati  nulla  corruptione  resistere  po- 
terit."  See  also  Epist.  ad  Consent.,  145. 

The  phrase  spiritual  body,  therefore,  may  properly  mean 
the  body  of  one  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  has  dwelt  in  this 
life,  and  whom  he  has  regenerated  and  sanctified ;  a  body 
which  he  will  raise  from  the  dead  at  the  resurrection,  and 
adapt  to  the  uses  of  the  returning  spirit.  For  as  he  is  said 
to  renew,  and  sanctify,  and  dwell  in  the  body  of  the  saint, 
and  thus  prepare  him  for  future  glory,  (1  Thess.  v.  20  ; 
1  Cor.  vi.  19,  and  2  Cor.  iv.  10, 11,)  so  he  is  eminently  con- 
16* 


186  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

cerried  in  the  resurrection,  and  in  furnishing  the  body  of  the 
saint  by  his  own  mighty  power.  Rom.  viii.  11.* 

This  view  of  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  body  will  be  con- 
firmed by  considering  what  kind  of  body  the  New  Testa- 
ment attributes  to  the  raised  saints.  "  We  shall  not  all 
sleep,"  says  Paul,  "  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  mo- 
ment," &c.,-  1  Cor.  XV.  51,  52.  The  emphasis  here  is  very 
strong,  TrdvTis  being  twice  repeated.  It  is  not  the  living 
saints  only  who  shall  be  changed ;  but  it  is  affirmed  of 
them  simply,  that  they  shall  not  die.  "  We  shall  not  all 
die,  but  we  shall  all,  whether  living  or  dead,  undergo  this 
change,  from  mortality  to  immortality,  and  from  corruption 
to  incorruption."  'a^x  aTTw  means  to  change  the  form  or  nature 
of  a  thing  into  a  better  or  worse,  and  not  the  substitution  of 
an  entirely  diverse  substance  for  the  thing  itself  which  is 
said  to  be  the  subject  of  the  change.  Such  a  change  passed 
upon  the  body  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  when  he  was  irans- 
Jigured  (jJt.iraf/.og<pm^  Matt.  xvii.  6,)  and  yet  it  was  the  same, 
body  then  that  it  was  before  and  after.  In  his  transfiguration 
the  same  change  doubtless  passed  upon  his  body  as  has 
since  his  ascension :  for  his  body  was  the  same  in  appear- 
ance during  that  transformation,  as  was  the  glorious  body 
of  Elijah ;  and  his  appearance  then  produced  substantially 
the  same  overpowering  effect  upon  his  three  disciples,  that  it 
did  subsequently  upon  Saul ;  see  Acts  xi.  and  xxii. 

If,  then,  such  a  transformation  could  be  wrought  upon  his 
body,  and  yet  it  remain  perfectly  and  identically  the  same; 
the  same  thing  may  take  place  in  the  bodies  of  the  elect — 
both  of  those  who  are  alive  when  he  comes,  and  of  those  who 
are  then  raised  from  the  dead,  and  that  without  destroying 
their  identity.  This  is  indisputable.  And  that  the  same 
change  will  be  wrought  upon  their  bodies  as  has  been 
wrought  in  his,  is  clear  from  Phil.  iii.  21.  And  that  this 
change  does  not  take  place  immediately  at  death,  but  will 
occur  at  his  coming,  is  also  clear  from  the  same  passage ; 
and  is,  moreover,  emphatically  asserted  in  1  John  iii.  2,  and 
1  Thess.  iv.  15-18.  Such  a  body,  then,  as  that  of  our  Sa- 
viour, all  glorious,  may  properly  be  called  a  spiritual  body; 
ar>d  such  will  be  our  resurrection  bodies,  if  we  are  truly 
his.     And  that  this  change,  whatever  it  may  be,  infers  no 

*  This  text  will  be  critically  examined  hereafter.     See  also  Chal- 
mers on  Romans,  pp.  261-264. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  187 

loss  of  corporeal  identity,  is  clear  from  the  uniform  declara- 
tions of  the  Bible.  ^^This  corruptible,''''  says  Paul,  "  must 
put  on  incorruption,  and  tins  mortal  must  put  on  immor- 
tality." 1  Cor,  XV.  53.  Now  it  is  impossible  to  refer  this 
language  to  the  spirit,  for  that  is  confessedly  neither  cor- 
ruptible nor  mortal.  It  can  refer  only  to  the  body.  Then 
in  2  Cor.  v.  4,  Paul  says,  "  Not  that  we  would  be  unclothed, 
but  clothed  upon,  that  mortality  might  he  swallowed  up  of 
lifey  But  mortality  here  can  only  be  predicated  of  the 
body,  and  hence  it  is  to  be  perfectly  endowed  with  immortal 
life.  The  word  translated  swallowed  vp  (x-ATXTriva)  means 
ahsorheo  aliquid  ita  ut  non  sit,  the  body  shall  be  mortal  no 
longer.  Its  mortal  functions  and  properties  shall  cease  to 
exist  forever. 

Such,  therefore,  being  the  plain  scriptural  import  of  the 
term  spiritual  body,  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush  is  false 
and  preposterous ;  and  his  objections  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  based  upon  his  application  of  this  term,  utterly 
unfounded. 

In  closing  his  remarks  on  onomatology,  (pp.  149,  150,) 
Professor  Bush  makes  a  long  extract  from  Locke's  letter  to 
Slillingfleet,  (a  poor,  paltry,  and  inconsistent  performance, 
and  altogether  unworthy  of  his  clarum  et  venerabile  no- 
men,)  in  which  that  great  philosopher  undertakes  to  show, 
that  at  the  general  resurrection  man  will  rise  with  a  mate- 
rial body,  but  not  with  precisely  the  same  body  that  dies. 
If  Mr.  Locke's  arguments  prove  this,  I  really  cannot  see 
how  it  asists  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  who  utterly  de- 
nies that  there  will  be  any  day  of  general  resurrection,  and 
that  man's  resurrection  body  is,  in  any  sense  of  the  term, 
such  as  Mr.  Locke  asserts  that  it  will  be.  In  its  proper  place 
we  shall  notice  what  he  has  offered  on  this  subject.  But 
as  he  is  the  favourite  author  of  Professor  Bush,  (who  quotes 
from  him  continually  in  discussing  the  New  Testament  argu- 
ment, and  especially  when  any  difliculty  presses  a  little  too 
hard,)  it  may  be  in  place  to  show  here  the  estimate  in  which 
he  is  held  as  a  theologian  and  critic  by  some  of  the  most 
learned  and  evangelical  men  of  our  age.  Professor  Tho- 
luck  (a  candid  witness)  shall  be  the  spokesman.  Referring 
to  Mr.  Locke,  this  admirable  scholar  and  critic  remarks : 
"  English  theology  has  sustained  irreparable  injury  from  the 
writings  of  Locke,  so  highly  lauded  by  Episcopalian  divines. 
We  have  elsewhere  shown  his  defective  views  of  Chris- 


18S       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

tianity.  Still,  not  only  in  England,  but  for  a  long  time  in 
Germany,  he  was  regarded  as  a  sound  interpreter,  and  an 
able  apologist  of  Christianity.  His  paraphrase  of  the  epis- 
tles of  Paul,  translated  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  are  not  only  de- 
ficient, as  Ernesti  has  sJwwn,  in  philology,  but  they  most 
miserably  dilute  and  weaken  the  doctrines  of  the  apostle. 
The  chief  fault  (5f  this  reputedly  orthodox  theologian,  is  the 
oversight  of  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity — the  Pela- 
gian error.  From  this  source  spring  all  his  other  errors. 
According  to  him,  every  man's  reason,  without  previous 
regeneration,  {which  is  not  included  in  his  system,)  must 
recognize  Christian  truth;  then  this  Christian  truth  is  diluted 
and  brought  down  to  the  standard  of  unregenerate  men.  The 
chief  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  found  in  mira- 
cles, or  in  the  beautiful  moral  precepts  of  the  Bible.  The 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  has  as  little  place  in  his  system 
as  that  of  original  siw."*  This  is  a  just  and  discriminating 
character.  And  while  we  shall  in  the  course  of  this  work, 
pay  all  proper  attention  to  his  arguments  as  quoted  by  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  we  shall,  without  intending  any  disrespect  to 
his  memory,  pass  over  his  theological  opinions  with  little  or 
no  remark. 

SEpTION  III. 

An  Examination  of  Professor  Bush's  remarks  and  criticisms  on 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  1st  Corinthians. 

The  subject  of  "the  Resurrection  of  Christ,"  which 
strangely  comes  next  in  order  in  the  work  of  Professor 
Bush,  we  shall  pass  by  for  the  present,  to  follow  our  author 
in  his  long  array  of  Scripture  texts.  He  does  not  seem  to 
regard  them  precisely  in  the  light  of  proof  texts,  by  which 
to  sustain  the  conclusions  of  his  "  argument  from  reason  ;" 
but  evinces  a  disposition  to  be  perfectly  satisfied,  provided 
he  can  only  show  that  their  testimony  is  not  altogether  sub- 
versive of  his  theory. 

I.  The  first  passage  of  this  chapter  which  the  Professor 
quotes  and  remarks  upon  is  the  following :  "  Now  if  Christ 
be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead,  how  say  some 
among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead?  But 
if  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  then  is  Christ  not 

*  See  "  Historical  Sketch  of  German  Rationalism." 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  189 

risen;"  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  13.  And  instead  of  entering  into  a 
discussion  of  that  remarkable  phraseology  in  ver.  12,  which 
strikes  so  deeply  at  the  very  root  of  his  theory,  to  wit :  ttZs 

Ki-ycva-i  Ttvi;  h  l/u'tv  on  dvda-rua-ic  vviej^v  ovKiTTtv,    i.  e.,  how  say  SOme 

AMONG  YOU — you  Christians  of  the  church  of  Corinth — that 
there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  (a  phrase  upon  which 
we  shall  remark  hereafter,)  he  passes  it  without  the  least 
reference.  The  following  is  the  whole  of  his  criticism  upon 
the  passage :  "  The  special  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  as 
generally  held  to  be  taught  in  this  chapter,  is  that  of  a 
simultaneous  resurrection  at  what  is  termed  '  the  last  day,' 
or  at  *  the  end  of  the  world.'  On  this  view  it  may  fairly 
be  submiited  as  a  question,  whether  the  apostle's  reasoning 
is  conclusive.  We  are  unable  to  perceive  how  the  fact  of  a 
resurrection  at  some  future  time  can  be  adduced  as  a  proof 
that  Christ  was  already  risen.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if 
it  could  be  shown  that  there  will  be  no  such  resurrection, 
wouLd  that  be  a  proof  that  Christ  is  not  risen  ?  Is  it  not,  at 
least,  within  the  range  of  possibilities  that  he  should  be  the 
only  one  raised  ?  The  truth  is,  as  the  apostle's  argument  is 
usually  explained,  it  makes  it  little  more  than  reasoning  in  a 
circle.  First,  the  future  resurrection  of  the  saints  is  proved 
by  the  past  resurrection  of  Christ;  and  then,  secondly,  the 
past  resurrection  of  Christ  is  proved  by  the  future  resur- 
rection of  his  people.  This  consequence  flows  naturally 
and  inevitably  from  regarding  the  resurrection  of  the  righ- 
teous as  a  future  simultaneous  event.  Let  it  be  understood 
as  a  present  event,  or  one  that  takes  place  with  every  indivi- 
dual believer  as  soon  as  he  leaves  the  body,  and  this  logical 
inconsistency  is  avoided,  and  a  flood  of  light  poured  upon 
the  train  of  the  apostle's  reasoning."  pp.  169,  170. 

This  is  all  that  the  Professor  has  said  on  the  passage; 
and  every  reader  will  no  doubt  think  with  me,  that  it  is 
much  to  be  regretted  that  our  learned  author  did  not  illus- 
trate how  the  adoption  of  his  theory  would  "  avoid  this 
logical  inconsistency ,"(!)  and  so  "pour  the  flood  of  light 
upon  the  train  of  the  apostle's  reasoning :"  for  as  it  seems 
to  me,  such  a  course  would  be  only  "  darkening  counsel 
by  words  without  knowledge,"  instead  of  "  pouring  lighi*^ 
upon  it. 

With  respect  to  the  simultaneousness  of  the  resurrection, 
I  shall  say  nothing  here,  as  that  subject  will  come  up  in  its 
regular  order  in  our  examination  of  Professor  Bush's  re- 


190  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

marks  on  verses  51-55  of  the  chapter.  But  before  he  in- 
dulged in  these  hypercritical  comments  (not  to  give  them  a 
more  appropriate  name)  he  should  have  quoted,  or  at  least 
referred  to  the  connexion  of  the  passage.  The  word  of 
God  is  rather  too  holy  a  subject  to  be  employed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  one's  wit :  and  a  writer  who  will  first  keep 
out  of  view  the  apostle's  explanation  of  his  own  language; 
and  then,  having  assumed  a  false  position,  attempt  to  sustain 
it  by  a  display  of  witticisms  at  the  expense  of  inspiration, 
deserves  something  more  severe  than  a  mere  refutation.  He 
should  be  made  to  hear  the  language  of  stern  and  indignant 
rebuke. 

The  argument  of  Paul,  as  the  reader  will  see  by  referring 
to  verses  3-11,  and  14,  15,  (which  Professor  Bush  has 
omitted  to  notice,)  is  simply  this :  *'  I  have  testified  to  you, 
ye  Christians  of  Corinth,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
was  buried,  and  rose  again  according  to  the  Scriptures  of 
the  old  economy;  and  that  he  was  seen,  after  his  resur- 
rection, by  multitudes  of  witnesses,  (who  are  still  living,) 
and  lastly  by  myself.  So  we  preach,  and  so  ye  believed. 
Here,  then,  is  the  evidence  that  Christ  has  arisen :— -the 
Scriptures  affirm  that  it  must  be  so,  and  multitudes  of 
living  witnesses  testify  that  it  has  been  so.  But  if  Christ  be 
preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among 
you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  For  if  there 
is  no  such  resurrection,  then  Christ  is  not  risen ;  because, 
as  I  have  already  shown  to  you,  (ver.  3,)  he  died,  was 
buried,  and  rose  again,  not  for  himself  but  for  us— for  our 
sins, — according  to  the  Scriptures.  And,  therefore,  if  he 
has  arisen,  we  must  arise;  and,  on  the  contrary,  if  we  do 
not  rise  again,  then  is  he  not  risen  ;  and,  consequently,  our 
preaching  is  false,  and  your  faith  in  the  Scriptures  is  vain ; 
and  we,  who  profess  to  have  seen  him  after  his  resur- 
rection, are  proved  to  be  false  witnesses,  because  we  have 
testified  that  God  raised  up  Christ,  whom  he  raised  not  up: 
and,  consequently,  you  are  yet  in  your  sins,  (for  if  he  has 
not  arisen,  then  he  is  not  our  Saviour  from  sin,  ver.  3,  4,) 
and  those  who  have  died  trusting  in  him,  have  trusted  in 
one  who  cannot  save  them,  and  have,  therefore,  perished." 
Such  is  the  apostle's  argument,  lying  upon  the  very  sur- 
face of  his  language,  and  plain,  one  would  think,  to  the 
comprehension  of  a  jchild.     And  yet  the  mind  of  Professor 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  191 

Bush  is  so  filled,  and  beclouded  by  his  tertium  quid  theory, 
that  he  has  utterly  failed  to  perceive  it. 

He  asks :  "  Is  it  not,  at  least,  within  the  range  of  possi- 
bilities that  he  (Christ)  should  be  the  only  one  raised?" 
What !  when  he  suffered,  and  died  for  ws,  and  rose  again 
for  us,  and  as  a  pledge  of  the  resurrection  of  his  redeemed, 
and  as  the  ''^ first  fruits  of  them  that  slept?"  (ver.  20.) 
Does  Professor  Bush  think  it  "  at  least  within  the  range  of 
possibilities,"  that  our  adorable  Redeemer  has  failed  to  ac- 
complish what  he  undertook  ?  No !  no !  he  does  not,  he 
cannot  entertain  such  a  thought,  until  he  has  surrendered 
his  heart's  dearest  hopes.  The  remark  was  as  thoughtless 
as  it  is  unbecoming ;  though  it  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of 
the  objection  upon  which  he  has  attempted  to  invalidate  what 
is  plainly  the  argument  of  the  apostle. 

The  Professor  cannot  see  "  how  the  fact  of  a  resurrection 
at  some  future  time  can  be  adduced  as  a  proof  that  Christ 
was  already  risen.     And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  could  be 
shown  that  there  will  be  no  such  resurrection,  would  that 
be  a  proof  that  Christ  is  not  risen  ?"     But  can  he  tell  how 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  proves  at  all  the  resurrection  of 
the  redeemed?  and  how  their  resurrection  (be  it  when  it 
may)  proves  the  resurrection  of  Christ?     Paul  says,  that 
the  establishment  of  either  fact  will  demonstrate  the  other:] 
and  surely  the  Professor  does  not  doubt  the  apostle's  de-  j  y 
claration.     In  the  foregoing  analysis  of  Paul's  argument  I  >  '■' 
have  pointed  out  the  connexion  referred  to.     If  our  author  i 
cannot  see  how  the  resurrection  of  Christ  proves  the  resur-  , 
rection  of  his  people,  and  vice  versa,  it  is  plain  to  all  men  \ 
that  he  ought  not  to  have  written  on  the  resurrection.     But 
if  he  can,  then  where  is  there  any  greater  difficulty  in  per- 
ceiving  the   connexion   between    Christ's  resurrection  and 
theirs,  and  vice  versa,  though  theirs  is  yet  future,  than  to 
see  this  connexion  on  the  hypothesis  of^their  resurrection  at 
death  ?     It  is  perfectly  preposterous  to  pretend  that  there  is 
any  such  difficulty.     In  fact,  the  only  difficulty  in  the  case 
wholly  attaches  to  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush;  and  on 
that  theory  it  is  indeed  insuperable.     Christ  did  not  arise 
from  the  dead  until  the  third  day;    hence  his  people  are 
consoled  with  the  assurance,  that  though  they  die,  and  are 
consigned  to  the  tomb,  yet  they,  like  Christ  their  great  fore- 
runner, shall  rise  from  its  dark  domains.     In  this  case  there 
is  a  comfortable  and  delightful  analogy  between  his  resur- 


192  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

rection  and  theirs.  He  arose  from  the  grave^  and  hence 
they  shall  also  arise.  But  on  the  theory  of  Professor 
Bush,  where  is  there  any  such  analogy?  He  avers,  that 
the  resurrection  takes  place  at  death,  and  not  after  it. 
"The  resurrection  body  is  eliminated  at  death;"  and  "  is 
exhaled  with  the  vital  principle."  But  the  spiritual  body  of 
Christ,  as  the  Professor  himself  avers,  was  not  thus  elimi- 
nated. He  arose  some  days  after  his  death;  but  his  people 
rise  at  death;  "every  individual  believer  is  raised  as  soon 
as  he  leaves  the  body,"  says  Professor  Bush.  And  are 
these  events  analogous?  and  is  such  the  view  which  is  "to 
pour  a  food  of  light  upon  the  train  of  the  apostle's  rea- 
soning?" If,  however,  this  "flood"  is  light,  it  must  be 
such  "  light"  as  is  emanated  from  the  dark  side  of  the 
moon ;  for  the  rays  are  all  too  feeble  to  enable  us  to  get 
even  a  glimpse  of  the  object  upon  which  they  are  ^^poured." 
And  he  who  attempts  to  illumine  the  reasoning  of  Paul  by 
the  adoption  of  such  a  theory,  will  have  good  reason  to 
say  with  one  of  old,  "  We  cannot  order  our  speech  by  rea- 
son of  darkness."  Job  xxxvii.  19. 

Professor  Bush  appears  to  be  exceedingly  anxious  to  con- 
vict the  advocates  of  the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  of  reasoning  in  a  circle.  We  have  seen  how 
he  has  fared  in  a  former  attempt,  and  an  examination  of  the 
effort  contained  in  his  remarks  on  the  text  before  us  will 
also  evince  that  this  circle,  like  Dean  Berkley's  ideal  world, 
exists  no  where  but  in  his  own  mind.  He  affirms,  that  if 
Paul,  in  this  chapter,  asserts  that  the  resurrection  is  still 
future,  his  reasoning  is  "  little  more  than  reasoning  in  a  cir- 
cle;" and  that  "  this  consequence  flows  naturally  and  in- 
evitably from  regarding  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  as 
a  future  simultaneous  event;"  which  ^^ logical  inconsistency 
is  avoided,"  if  we  suppose  that  the  resurrection  "  takes 
place  with  every  individual  believer  so  soon  as  he  leaves 
the  body."  These  are  not  only  broad,  but  pretty  tangible 
assertions.  They  are  mere  baseless  assertions,  of  a  very 
grave  character  indeed,  but  meriting  no  reply  other  than  a 
bare  denial  of  their,  truth,  if  Professor  Bush  has  hazarded 
them  merely  for  the  sake  of  effect,  he  cannot  fail  to  meet 
the  reward  of  such  temerity,  in  that  decision  which  an  en- 
lightened public  will  sooner  or  later  pronounce  upon  his 
performance.  But  if  he  had  reasons  for  making  them,  then 
of  course  he  is  able  to  exhibit  his  proof  upon  which  they 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  193 

are  based.  I  call  for  it  therefore;  and  I  ask  him  to  produce 
his  evidence  that  will  justify  the  assertion,  that  the  suppo- 
sition of  the  resurrection  being  simultaneous  and  future, 
must  convict  Paul  of  reasoning  in  a  circle.  And  I  ask  him 
to  show,  also,  how  this  consequence  is  avoided  by  the  sup- 
position that  believers  arise  from  the  dead  at  death.  He 
has  asserted  that  these  things  are  so ;  and,  in  order  that 
there  may  be  a  true  issue,  I  deny  positively,  and  unequivo- 
cally, that  they  are  so.     Let  us  have  the  proof  therefore. 

In  closing  my  observations  upon  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  13,  I 
would  remark  tha|..it  affords  an  unanswerable  argument  in 
favour  of  the  do^rine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
The  proof  is  indeed  incidental,  but  it  is  not  the  less  con- 
clusive. We  quoted  above  the  original  of  the  clause  re- 
ferred to. — "  How  say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no 
resurrection  of  the  dead?"  "  That  is,"  as  a  learned  critic 
expounds  it,  "  how  say  some  among  you  Christians,  (who 
believe  the  Gospel,)  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the 
dead?"  Quomodo  dicunt  quidam  in  vobis.  Id  est,  inter  vos 
Christianos,  qui  evangelio  credidistis."  See  also  the  excellent 
criticism  of  Parous  in  loco.  And  Piscator  gives  the  true 
emphasis  of  the  phrase  when  he  says,  that  nZq^  or  ^^how  has 
here  the  force  of  rebuking  or  upbraiding ;  as  if  he  had  said, 
they  ought  not^  therefore,  to  deny  the  resurrection  of  the 
deady  Scholia  in  loco. 

Now  it  is  conceivable  that  a  man  may,  like  Professor 
Bush,  deny  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  yet  be  a  good 
man ;  as  the  apostle  in  ver.  12  takes  for  granted  that  they 
were  who  said  there  was  no  resurrection  of  the  dead.  This, 
I  say,  is  easily  conceivable.  But  is  it  conceivable — can 
Professor  Bush  himself  conceive  how  a  person  can  be  a 
good  man  and  a  Christian,  who  should  deny  the  future  ex- 
istence of  man?  Can  Professor  Bush  conceive  that  Paul 
would  recognize  such  persons  as  members  of  the  Christian 
church?  Would  Professor  Bush  himself  recognize  a  man 
as  a  Christian,  and  believer  of  divine  revelation,  who  should 
deny  the  future  state  of  man  ?  No,  he  would  not !  for  he 
knows  that  such  a  procedure  would  at  once  confound  Chris- 
tianity with  infidelity.  What,  then,  is  the  import  of  "  re- 
surrection^^  here?  avda-TAo-K  mt^Zvl  Does  it — can  it  mean  a 
future  state,  as  Professor  Bush  pretends  ?  No,  not  without 
the  most  manifest  absurdity.  And  if  not,  the  term  dvaa-raa-K  \  >k 
yatgXy  can  only  refer  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body;  the 

1     /JL  «  k^. 


194        /        IgE  ;RESURRECTI0N  OF  THE  BODY 

'-...-.         '  ■■/  '    ■■'.         ••'■--       ■      '.<y 

deniers,  of  which  held  some  such  theory  as  Professor  Bushf-^ 
jand,  therefore,  without  asserting  that  they  had  forfeited  their 
j  Christian  standing,  Paul  endeavours  to  recall  them  to  the 
^j   "''     true  faith.     And  hence  it  is  perfectly  clear,  also,  that  the 
*^       theory  of  Professor  Bush  is  really  and  truly  a  denial  of  the 
trt^  '       Bible  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
f%^^  II.  The  next  passage  is  as  follows :    "  For  if  the  dead 

rise  not,  then  is  Christ  not  raised :   and  if  Christ  be  not 
'*'^'^^      raised,  your  faith  is  vain;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.     Then 
i<2ur,       they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished." 
1  Cor.  XV.  16-18. 

The  Professor  opens  his  battery  upon  this  text  as  fol- 
lows ;  *'  The  gist  of  the  apostle's  argument  occurs  in  a  sub- 
sequent part  of  the  chapter,  but  we  cannot  but  advert  to  the 
present  passage  as  conveying  a  very  singular  sentiment  on 
the  common  theory,  that  Paul  is  here  maintaining  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body.  Upon  that  view  we  are  at  a  loss 
to  perceive  the  logical  coherence  of  the  reasoning.  How 
does  it  follow  that  those  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  Jesus  had 
PERISHED,  provided  there  was  no  resurrection  of  the  body? 
Their  souls,  the-  true  constituent  of  themselves,  were  cer- 
tainly in  being,  and  what  should  prevent  their  souls  being 
saved,  even  if  their  bodies  did  not  rise?"  pp.  170,  171. 
Professor  Bush  cannot  see  this  :  but,  reader,  look  ye  at  the 
apostle's  argument,  and  you  will  have  no  difficulty.  Paul 
sets  out  (as  above  remarked)  with  a  statement,  the  truth  of 
which  is  based  upon  divine  and  human  testimony,  that 
'  Christ  died,  was  buried,  and  rose  again  for  our  saJces. 
^'  And  then,  in  order  to  convince  those  of  the  Corinthian 
church  who  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  he  reminds 
them  that  they  professed  to  believe  this  fact.  He  next  pro- 
ceeds to  reason  from  it:  e.g.  "  If  Christ  has  done  this  for 
us,  and  has  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept,  his 
resurrection  must,  therefore,  be  a  pledge  of  the  resurrection 
of  those  for  whom  he  died.  Hence  what  was  begun  in 
him,  must  be  completed  in  his  members.  If  he  has  arisen, 
then  we  shall  also  arise.  But,  on  the  contrary,  if  there  is 
no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  it  follows  that  Christ  has  not 
arisen :  because  if  he  were  the  Saviour  announced  in  the 
Psalms  and  Prophets,  he  must  arise.  If  he  has  not  arisen, 
therefore,  he  is  not  that  Saviour ;  and,  therefore,  you  have 
no  Saviour,  and  are  yet  in  your  sins,  and,  by  consequence, 
those  who  have  died,  depending  on  Christ  to  save  them  from 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  195 

sin,  have  not  been  saved  from  sin,  but  are  gone  to  hell,  and 
have  perished  beyond  all  hope  of  recovery."  Such  is  a 
somewhat  diffuse  paraphrase  of  the  argument,  evincing  it  to 
be  logical  and  demonstrative,  and  the  connexion,  or  ^^  logi- 
cal coherence,^''  perfectly  apparent. 

But  Professor  Bush  cannot  see  "  what  should  prevent 
their  souls  being  saved,  even  if  their  bodies  did  not  rise."  -^ 
But  how  saved  ? — without  a  Saviour?  .  Paul  has  just  shown  'mJ^ 
that  if  the  dead  rise  not,  then  Christ  is  not  the  Saviour  pro-  dtt>-^^ 
mised  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  that,  therefore,  those  who  -ju-  J 
trusted  in  him  for  salvation  could  not  he  saved.  The  im-  {Jt^^ 
port  of  Professor  Bush's  question,  therefore,  is  this ;  could  ,^.^  . 
not  the  souls  of  those  who  fell  asleep  in  Christ  have  been  .{O. '\ 
saved,  even  if  he  were  not  the  Saviour?  And  if  this  be  his  "w^i 
meaning,  the  Professor  must  answer  the  question  for  him-  ''^t^ 
self;  for  it  concerns  a  quite  different  matter  from  that  which  ^w-Ti 
we  now  have  before  us.  -  ^  ^'  -    -'-'<.  /km 

In  the  foregoing  quotation  the  Professor  has  made  a  pass-'-^jiii^  / 
ing  reference  to  a  phrase  in  ver.  18,  upon  which  he  ought  '  ^ 
to  have  bestowed  some  serious  notice.  It  is  this :  «  *o//*j)6«yTec 
Iv  x§/(7-t::,  "  those  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ."  On  p.  173 
he  speaks  also  of  "  the  state  of  those  wlio  fall  asleep  in 
him;^^  and  on  p.  190,  also,  he  expresses  the  same  idea — 
"  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  (i.  e.,  die,)  but  we  shall  all,"  &c.; 
yet  in  neither  place  does  he  attempt  to  explain  it  in  consist- 
ency with  his  theory,  that  the  resurrection  takes  place  at 
death.  The  necessity  for  such  an  attempted  conciliation 
will  appear  in  a  moment,  if  we  only  recur  to  some  of  his 
previous  remarks  and  criticisms.  In  his  remarks,  for  ex- 
ample, on  Psalm  xvii.  15,  "  I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I 
awake  with  thy  likeness,"  pp.  105-108;  or  on  Dan.  xii.  2, 
"  Many  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake;^^ 
pp.  132-134.  Now  this  word  ^^awake,^"*  he  explains  to 
mean  *'  the  awaking  of  the  righteous  to  a  beatified  state"  at 
death,  at  which  time  "  the  spiritual  body  is  eliminated  from 
the  corporeal."  So,  then,  according  to  this  vastly  conve- 
nient theory  of  the  Professor,  the  believer  at  death,  both 
^'awakes''  and  ''falls  asleep/'^  Nor  does  our  author  find 
any  difficulty,  or  perceive  any  inconsistency  in  using  both 
of  these  phrases,  (so  diametrically  contradictory  to  each 
other,)  as  descriptive  of  one  and  the  same  event. — As  .  ,^ 
though  it  should  be  said  of  a  man  who  went  to  bed  on  a 
certain  night  and  slept  until  morning,  at  which  time  he 


196  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

awoke,  and  arose  from  the  bed ;  that  his  going  to  sleep  in 
the  evening,  and  his  awaking  in  the  morning,  meant  one 
and  the  same  thing.  Into  these  vagaries  has  our  author 
been  led,  by  his  attempt  to  make  death  and  the  resurrection 
one  and  the  same. 

After  quoting  Mr.  Pelt,  &c.,  (whose  reasoning,  by  the 
way,  directly  contravenes  one  or  more  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Professor  Bush's  theory,)  our  author  closes 
with  an  effort  to  make  dvda-Tcta-i?  to  mean  nothing  more  than 
"  living  again,  future  life,  future  state — as  a  state  to  be  im- 
mediately  entered  upon  at  death,  instead  of  '  resurrection,' 
implying  the  resurrection  of  the  body:"  and  he  informs  us, 
that  "  by  substituting,  throughout  the  chapter"  either  of 
the  foregoing  terms,  "  the  whole  course  of  reasoning  be- 
comes luminous  and  pertinent,  while  it  is,  at  the  same  time, 
brought  into  perfect  harmony  with  the  general  tenor  of  the 
Scriptures  on  the  subject."  p.  172. 

1  have  sometimes  been  almost  tempted  to  doubt  whether 
Professor  Bush,  in  some  of  these  round  assertions,  is  really 
in  earnest ;  for  it  seems  to  me  that  just  in  proportion  as  a 
proposition  is  destitute  of  proof,  does  he  assert  the  existence 
of  the  most  demonstrative  proof  in  its  favour.  The  term 
resurrection,  or  avda-miTic,  occurs  only  in  vers.  12,  13,  21, 
and  42.  With  respect  to  vers.  12  and  13,  we  have  shown 
above,  the  utter  impracticability  of  explaining  the  word 
in  the  way  mentioned  by  Professor  Bush.  Try  it  then 
with  ver.  21:  "Since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  also 
came  a. 'future  state.'  "  Where,  then,  is  the  antithesis?  ,» 
The  apostle's  argument  is,  that  to  that  upon  which  Adam'*"*  ^ 
brought  death,  Christ  brought  life.  But  Adam  brought 
death  to  the  body,  and,  therefore,  Christ  brought  life  to  the 
body.  Such  is  the  antithesis ;  and  unless,  therefore,  "  future 
state"  includes  the  revival  of  the  body,  it  could  not  here 
translate  dvaa-raa-ig.  And  then  again.  On  Professor  Bush's 
theory,  how  can  we  understand  this  verse?  "  By  man  came 
death."  But  death  is  the  entrance  upon  the  resurrection 
state,  by  "natural  laws."  Therefore,  "by  Adam  came  the 
entrance  upon  the  resurrection  state,  and  by  Christ  came 
the  future  state."  Is  this  the  way  Professor  Bush  would 
construe  the  passage?  But  not  to  insist  upon  this,  let  us 
look  at  the  last  place  where  the  word  occurs :  "  So  also 
is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  (i.  e.,  says  Professor 
Bush  *  the  future  state.^)     "  It  is  sown  in  corruption ;  it  is 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  197 

raised  in  incorruption."  ver.  42.  To  substitute  future  state 
for  resurrection  here,  would  make  sheer  nonsense.  The 
import  is  plain :  "/jf,  that  is,  the  dead  body,  is  sown  in  cor- 
ruption;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption."  The  term"soziJn" 
we  shall  consider  when  we  come  to  examine  the  remarks  of 
Professor  Bush  on  the  passage  in  which  it  occurs. 

III.  The  following  is  his  next  quotation :  "  But  now  is 
Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first-fruits  of 
them  that  slept.  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man 
also  came  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam 
all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But 
every  man  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the  first-fruits ;  after- 
ward they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming."  1  Cor.  xv.  20-23. 

The  force  of  the  expression  vfvi  SI,  <'  but  now  is  Christ," 
&c.,  is  as  if  the  apostle  had  said,  but  now  it  is  false  that 
we  of  all  men  are  the  most  miserable,  and  have  hope  in 
Christ  only  in  this  life,  and  none  hereafter:  For  Christ  is 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  frstfruits  of  them 
that  slept.  The  similitude  of  the  first  fruits  was  taken 
from  a  rite  of  the  ancient  law.  For  as  in  the  offering  of  the 
first-fruits,  the  product  of  the  whole  year  was  consecrated, 
so,  as  Calvin  remarks,  "  the  poicer  of  Chrisfs  resurrection 
is  diffused  to  all  his  chosen."  (Compare  Phil.  iii.  10;  tow  yvZyeu 
Tiiv  J'uvctjutv  T»?  dvsta-rdff-taic  ai/Tou.)  Thus  also  the  apostle  else- 
where reasons :  "  If  the  first-fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also 
holy."  Rom.  xi.  16.  Compare  Lev.  xxiii.  10,  and  Numb. 
XV.  18-21.  Thus  by  his  resurrection  he  made  a  way  for 
the  resurrection  of  his  members,  as  the  offering  of  the  first 
fruits,  according  to  the  law,  sanctified  the  whole  crop. 

Speaking  of  this  term,  (first-fruits,  u9r«§;t^»)  as  applied  by 
the  apostle  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  Professor  Bush  re- 
marks as  follows :  "  The  idea  is  not  so  much  that  Christ 
was  the  first,  in  the  order  of  time,  who  rose  from  the  dead 
— as  we  are  expressly  taught,  both  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  that  prior  causes  of  resurrection  had  re- 
peatedly occurred — but  the  first  in  rank,  the  author,  the 
procuring  cause  of  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  But  the 
whole  harvest  began  to  be  gathered  in  immediately  after 
the  presentation  of  the  first-fruits,  and  it  would  be  a  very 
violent  construction  of  the  analogy  to  suppose  it  to  imply 
that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years  might  elapse  between 
the  resurrection  of  the  grand  Precursor  and  that  of  the  mass 
of  his  followers."  p.  173. 

17* 


198       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

There  are  several  things  here  asserted,  to  each  of  which 
I  would  distinctly  reply.  1.  He  says  that  aTTA^^**  here  does 
not  mean  "  that  Christ  was  the  first  in  the  order  of  time ;" 
and  he  attempts  to  sustain  this  position  by  a  reference  to 
previous  cases  of  resurrection.  But,  (1,)  does  Professor 
Bush  mean  by  this  to  intimate  that  a  resurrection  to  this 
present  mortal  life,  is  parallel  to  a  resurrection  to  an  im- 
mortal state  of  being]  If  they  are  not  parallel  cases, 
why  are  they  brought  into  the  argument?  If  ten  thousand 
had  previously  been  raised,  to  die  again,  still  when  Christ 
arose  from  the  dead  to  an  immortal  life,  he  was  the  first- 
fruits  of  those  who  should  after  him,  in  the  time  of  the  great 
harvest,  obtain  a  like  resurrection  to  immortality.  And  it 
is  to  discriminate  his  case  from  that  of  all  others  whose 
resurrection  had  preceded  his,  that  Paul  remarks,  (for  the 
peculiar  benefit  of  those  who,  like  Professor  Bush,  thought 
them  parallel,)  that  "  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead, 
dieth  no  more ;  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  Am." 
Rom.  vi.  9.  Bui,  (2,)  why  did  not  Professor  Bush,  instead 
of  making  the  loose,  unsupported  assertion,  that  it  does  not 
mean  "  that  Christ  was  the  first  in  the  order  of  time,"  enter 
into  an  investigation  of  the  term  or  phrase  itself?  Were 
not  the  first-fruits  under  the  Old  Testament,  "  the  first  in 
the  order  of  time?"  Why  should  the  term,  therefore,  not 
import  here  also  that  Christ  is  thus  first?  It  is  rather  too 
much  to  ask  us  to  yield  our  best-supported  and  most  cher- 
ished convictions  to  the  mere  unsupported  i-pse  dixit  of 
Professor  Bush.  But  why  did  he  not  examine  other  places 
where  the  term  is  used,  and  then  favour  us  with  the  result? 
e.  g.,  Rom.  viii.  23,  and  xi.  16,  and  xvi.  5,  or  James  i.  18, 
or  Rev.  xiv.  4.  Or,  why  did  he  not  take  the  instance  in  the 
very  context  itself?  (ver.  23,  and  these,  with  the  text,  are 
the  only  instances  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament,) 
"  Christ  the  first-fruits ;  afterward,  (eWrat)  they  that 
ARE  Christ's  at  his  coming."  What  are  we  to  think  of 
such  bold  assertions  of  our  author,  so  directly  in  the  face  of 
the  clearest  asseverations  of  the  word  of  God  ?  But  if  the 
word  asragAi"  were  passed  over  without  examination  by  the 
Professor,  he  might  have  found  phrases  in  abundance  which 
would  have  illustrated  this,  and  preserved  him  from  making 
an  assertion  so  utterly  destitute  of  support.  See  e.  g..  Col. 
i.  18,  where  he  is  called  the  first-born  from  the  dead:'^ 
ft^aroTOKQt  tK  TwK  yi3ifjy.    Or,  See  Rev.  i.  5,  where  precisely  the 


\^^       OF   THB  ^ 

HIVEP.SIT 

ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDEIL  ^\/  ^^^^99    ..         , 

same  phrase  is  found.  A  consideration  of  thesemtngs  can 
leave  no  doubt  on  the  mind,  as  to  whether  Christ  is  here  de- 
clared to  be  first  in  the  order  of  time.     But 

2,  The  Professor  thinks  "  it  would  be  a  very  violent  con- 
struction of  the  analogy  to  suppose  it  to  imply  that  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  years  might  elapse  between  the  resurrection 
of  the  grand  Precursor  and  that  of  the  mass  of  his  fol- 
lowers," as  "  the  whole  harvest  began  to  be  gathered  in  im- 
mediately after  the  presentation  of  the  first-fruits."  Now, 
(1.)  what  are  we  to  think  of  such  an  objection,  when 
viewed  in  connexion  with  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush? 
He  teaches  that  the  resurrection-body  is  eliminated  from  our 
corporeal  fabric  at  death,  by  natural  laws,  and  that  all  true 
believers  who  died  from  Adam  to  Christ  entered  upon  the 
resurrection  state,  i.  e.,  arose  from  the  dead.  That  is,  the 
harvest  was  half  gathered  before  the  presentation  of  the 
first-fruits.  And  yet  he  says  that  we  do  "  violence"  to 
"  the  analogy,"  though  we  make  the  harvest,  as  he  admits, 
to  be  after  the  gathering  of  the  first-fruits.  There  is  some- 
thing so  perfectly  ludicrous  about  this  that  no  exposure  can 
make  it  more  so.  But  (2.)  the  apostle  says  nothing  about 
the  length  of  time  between  the  oflfering  of  the  first-fruits 
and  the  harvest;  The  analogy  is  not  concerned  with  this. 
He  is  simply  speaking  first  of  the  gathering  of  the  first- 
fruils,  and  secondly  of  the  crop  itself.  He  has  told  us  that 
the  first-fruits  were  gathered :  and  now  he  proceeds  to  show 
when  the  crop  itself  shall  be  brought  in.  But  this  branch 
of  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  so  important  to  a  right 
understanding  of  what  he  says  respecting  the  resurrection, 
Professor  Bush  entirely  passes  over; — he  does  not  even 
quote  the  verses//  From  ver.  23,  above  quoted,  he  passes 
on  to  ver.  35,  and  omits  the  very  part  of  the  argument 
where  Paul  proceeds  to  mention  when  the  harvest  itself  is  to 
be  gathered.  Is  such  a  procedure  upright?  is  it  honourable? 
Professor  Bush  has  quoted  and  commented  on  several  of 
these  verses  in  another  part  of  his  book,  (p.  367  seq.,)  but 
not  in  connexion  with  the  subject  before  us.  Duty  and 
honour  required  of  him  to  notice  it  in  this  connexion.  The 
passage  is  the  following  :  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he 
shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and  all  au- 
thority and  power.     For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all 


200       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

enemies  under  his  feet.  Deaths  the  last  enemy,  shall  be 
destroyed,  &c.  See  vers.  24-28. 

In  this  passage  Paul  speaks  of  the  ingathering  of  the 
harvest  itself,  as  he  had  been  speaking  already  of  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  first-fruits.  The  phrase  "Va  to  TsxocoTai',  &c., 
"  T/ie/i  Cometh  the  end,"  is  referred  to  the  preceding  verse, 
«v  T«  nagoucrU  all ou,  at  the  time  of  his  coming:  and  is  sus- 
ceptible of  illustration  by  other  passages,  almost  without 
number,  in  the  Bible.  See  e.  g.,  Mai.  iii.  17,  18  :  ^^And  they 
shall  be  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  in  that  day  when  I 
make  up  my  Jewels,''^  or  special  treasures.  But  in  the  New 
Testament  the  parallels  and  illustrations  are  so  numerous 
and  pertinent,  that  it  is  astonishing  how  any  one  could 
overlook  them.  Christ  himself  has  represented  it  under  the 
very  figure  of  a  harvest, — the  very  illustration  here  em- 
.ployed  by  Paul.  See  Matt.  xiii.  24-30,  and  36-43:  ''The 
harvest,^''  says  he,  "  is  the  end  of  the  world;  and  the  reapers 
are  the  angels.  As,  therefore,  the  tares  are  gathered  and 
burned  in  the  fire:  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall 
gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them 
which  do  inquity,  &c.,  &c.  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine 
forth  as  the  sun,"  &c. 

The  phrase  "  end  of  the  world,"  is  o-WTiXiia  roS  atZvoz  rovrav, 
(see  also  Matt,  xxviii.  20,)  and  is  asserted  by  Professor  Bush 
(pp.  367,  368)  to  mean  the  same  thing  as  tsxo?  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
24 ;  thus  bringing  these  two  passages  (so  far  as  the  in- 
gathering of  the  harvest  is  concerned)  into  a  parallel.  The 
inference  is  therefore  irresistible,  that  the  harvest  is  not  to 
be  gathered  until  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  What  could 
Professor  Bush  hope  to  gain  by  keeping  out  of  sight  this 
glaring  proof  of  the  falseness  of  his  theory;  at  the  same  time 
also  that  he  professed  to  be  analyzing  and  discussing  Paul's 
whole  argument  (in  this  chapter)  on  the  resurrection? 

In  this  connexion  he  has,  likewise,  passed  over  another 
overpowering  proof  of  the  falseness  of  his  theory.  I  refer 
to  ver.  29  :  "  Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for 
the  dead,  {uJtie,  t^^v  vatf^v)^  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why 
are  they  then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?"  Now  the  argument 
deducible  from  this  verse  against  Professor  Bush's  theory, 
that  the  resurrection  takes  place  at  death,  and  not  after  it, 
does  not  depend  upon  our  being  able  to  explain  what  was 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  201 

the  rite  here  referred  to  by  the  apostle.  So  far  as  the  argu- 
ment is  concerned,  any  one  of  that  almost  score  of  inter- 
pretations mentioned  by  Bochart  (0pp.  Tom.  I.,  pp.  1026- 
1035,  Leyden,  1692,  folio)  may  be  the  true  one.  But  the 
point  is  this : — the  persons  here  spoken  of  by  Paul,  and 
whom  he  asserts  to  be  dead,  (vnc^ol)  had  not  yet  arisen  from 
the  dead.  The  supposition  that  they  had  arisen  at  death, 
would  be  an  accusation  against  Paul  of  foolishness,  or  of 
dishonesty  in  his  argument.  The  persons  spoken  of  as  dead 
were  at  that  time  dead,  of  course;  and  Paul  and  other  be- 
lievers asserted  that  they  would  rise  from  the  dead.  Of 
course,  then,  they  had  not  arisen  at  death.  And,  therefore, 
the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  which  asserts  that  man  does 
rise  at  death,  is  utterly  false.  The  conclusion  is  irresistible 
on  the  principle,  (asserted  by  Professor  Bush,)  that  Paul  is  in 
this  chapter  treating  of  the  resurrection  of  only  the  righteous 
dead. 

In  the  close  of  his  remarks  on  vers.  20-23,  the  Professor 
throws  out  several  observations  which  call  for  a  brief  no- 
tice. In  order  to  justify  the  exposition  which  he  has  given 
in  the  passage  quoted  above,  he  adds  that  the  true  view  of 
the  matter  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  sequel,  (i.  e.,  vers. 
21-23,)  in  which  we  are  taught,  that  this  resuscitation  of 
the  dead,  this  investiture  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  with  im- 
mortality, proceeds  in  a  manner  analagous  with  the  suc- 
cessive generations  of  the  animal  and  mortal  family  who 
derive  their  first  life  from  Adam.''''  But  if  the  reader  will 
consult  pages  175,  185,  186,  &c.,  &c.,  of  Professor  Bush's 
work,  he  will  find  that,  according  to  the  Professor's  theory, 
man  derives  not  only  his  first  life  from  Adam,  but  his 
^^  spiritual  body''''  likewise;  which  the  theory  recognizes  as 
the  second  life.  But  this  only  in  passing.  Our  author 
continues  thus:  "As  the  first  family  is  not  formed  at  once, 
nor  dissolved  at  once;  as  the  members  of  it  have  risen  into 
existence  in  succession;  so  neither  will  the  other  family  be 
completed  at  once."  pp.  173,  174. 

The  object  of  Professor  Bush  in  these  remarks,  is  to  en- 
deavour to  afford  his  theory  en  passant  the  support  of  a 
fanciful  analogy,  dependent  on  his  notion  of  the  succession 
in  the  order  of  completing  the  family  of  Adam  and  that  of 
Christ.  Now  it  is  true,  as  Paul  remarks,  that  our  first  life 
(as  well  as  our  death)  is  derived  from  Adam,  and  our 
second  life  from  Christ.     But  where  is  the  antithesis  of 


202       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

succession  referred  to  by  the  Professor?  So  far  from  Christ 
being  the  first  of  his  great  family  who  arose  from  the  dead 
to  a  glorious  immortality,  Professor  Bush  makes  his  family 
to  have  preceded  him  in  this  resurrection  for  thousands  of 
years.  This  surely  is  pointing  out  a  queer  resemblance  be- 
tween Adam  as  the  frst  of  his  family,  and  Christ  as  the 
frst  of  his !  And  the  Professor  is  welcome  to  all  the  sup- 
port that  his  theory  can  receive  from  such  a  striking 
analogy.  But,  secondly;  he  insinuates  here  also  that  the 
advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
entertain  the  sentiment,  that  the  family  of  Christ  have  no- 
thing of  succession  in  their  assembling.  If  Professor  Bush 
would  open  Howe's  *'  Blessedness  of  the  Righteous,"  or 
Baxter's  "Saint's  Rest,"  or  Edwards'  "Sermon  at  Brainard's 
Funeral,"  or  any  one  of  the  ^^  Corpus  Confessionum,^^  he 
would  find  the  Protestant  belief  to  be,  that  God  adopts  his 
elect  out  of  the  generations  of  man  as  they  succeed  one 
another;  and  that  when  they  die,  they  "are  present  with 
the  Lord,"  and  there  await  the  coming  of  the  great  day, 
when  they  shall  re-assume  their  bodies,  which  shall  then 
be  changed  and  "  fashioned  like  his  own  glorious  body." 
Through  the  successive  ages  of  the  world,  regeneration, 
justification,  and  adoption  had  rendered  them  "the  sons  of 
God"  before  they  left  earth:  and,  though  it  did  not  then 
"  appear  what  they  should  be,"  they  were  willing  to  wait 
(either  "  in  the  body  or  out  of  it,")  until  he  who  is  their  life 
should  appear,  and  clothe  them  anew,  in  the  then  beautified 
garments  of  their  once  mortal  bodies,  and  thus  gather  them 
home  as  a  precious  harvest,  purchased  with  his  blood. 

The  Professor  next  endeavours  to  expound  the  phrase, 
"  but  every  man  in  his  own  order:"  but  it  is  an  exposition 
which  may  be  significantly  described  by  a  phrase  used 
sometimes  by  critics, — "  a  running  commentary ."  Unita- 
rians and  Universalists  often  affect  to  employ  this  kind  of 
exposition ;  but  theirs  is  not  exactly  "  a  running  commen- 
tary," but  a  running  away  from  the  text.  And  even  our 
author  not  unfrequently  (in  his  Anastasis)  uses  this  me- 
thod. And  here  he  passes  this  important  phrase  with  the 
following  mere  ipse  dixit:  "  Every  man  of  this  (Christ's) 
family,  is  to  be  quickened  *  in  his  own  order,'  or  as  [when)  he 
dies,  from  Christ  the  first-fruits,"  &c.,  p.  174.  This  is  rather 
a  too  summary  method  of  interpreting  hard  phrases,  but  per- 
haps the  Professor  thinks  that  "  results  and  not  processes  are 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  203 

for  the  public  eye."  Still,  I  should  very  much  like  to  know 
how  he  ascertained  that  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  that 
every  man  is  raised  from  the  dead  at  his  death — that  the 
instant  he  is  dead,  he  is  raised  from  the  dead.  It  is  won- 
derful that  our  author  did  not  exhibit  his  evidence,  and  de- 
monstrate this  point  at  once,  for  it  would  have  saved  him 
much  subsequent  labour,  and  would  also  have  been  of  great 
advantage  to  his  theory;  and  I  divine  that  the  simple  reason 
why  he  has  not  done  this  is,  that  he  had  no  proof  to  give. 
Yet  I  have  a  little  proof  to  offer  of  the  falseness  of  this  ex- 
position, before  I  pass  on.  In  1  Thess.,iv.  13-18,  Paul,  re- 
ferring to  the  time  of  the  resurrection  and  to  that  event 
itself,  says:  "This  we  say  unto  you,  by  the  word  of  the 
Lordi  that  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming 
of  the  Lord,  shall  not  prevent  (cu  ^»  <j>Saa-4)^ev,  shall  not  anti- 
cipate) them  which  are  asleep:''''  that  is,  we  shall  not  re- 
ceive this  glorious  change  before  they  do.  And  would  not 
this  be  a  most  extraordinary  piece  of  information  for  Paul 
now  to  impart,  if  he  had  been  teaching  all  along  that  every 
man  was  quickened,  or  raised  from  the  dead  at  death,  or  as 
he  died  1  This  would  be  "  going  to  first  principles"  with  a 
vengeance.  It  would  be  making  him  say,  "  those  who  are 
asleep  have  already  entered  on  the  resurrection -state,  and 
have  been  changed ;  some  of  them  thousands  of  years 
before  this  time  of  which  I  speak.  And  now  I  tell  you 
from  the  Lord  himself,  {it  is  a  special  and  direct  revela- 
tion,)  that  those  who  shall  be  alive  at  the  time  of  his  com- 
ing, shall  not  enter  upon  that  state  before  those  who  had 
entered  upon  it  "  even  thousands  of  years  ago."  Does  Pro- 
fessor Bush  think  that  it  would  require  a  revelation  to  make 
the  Thessalonians  believe  this  ? 

As  to  the  word  translated  order,  (rdyf^A,)  therefore,  what- 
ever else  it  may  mean,  it  can  have  no  such  import  as  that 
attached  to  it  by  Professor  Bush.  It  is  a  military  term, 
and  is  employed  only  once  in  the  New  Testament,  although 
it  is  sometimes  used  in  the  LXX.,  e.  g.,  1  Sam.  iv.  10,  and 
XV.  4,  and  2  Sam.  xxiii.  13.  Josephus  also  employs  it. 
Antiq.,  lib.  14,  cap.  15,  §.  9,  and  De  Bell.,  lib.  1,  cap.  9,  §,  1, 
&c.  The  idea  seems  to  be,  that  every  one  shall  be  raised 
in  his  own  rank.  There  is  a  distinction  merely  between  the 
leader  and  the  body  of  the  army;  (see  the  illustrations  of 
the  use  of  the  word  above  referred  to ;)  the  leader  is  first, 
the  raryfxx,  or  Ta^/usiTa,  come  after — each  in  his  own  order. 


204  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODr 

Hence  in  the  second  part  of  the  verse  Paul  gives  an  exegesis 
of  the  part  referred  to. 

Tertullian  thinks  that  the  order  (or  rank)  is  an'order  ac- 
cording to  merit,  as  e.  g.,  the  martyrs  first,  then  others  next 
in  merit,  &c.  See  Rev.  xx.  This  is  likewise  the  view  of 
the  learned  Mede.  Others  think  that  the  resurrection  here 
spoken  of  will  be  perfectly  simultaneous,  and  that  "  order" 
refers  to  that  celestial  order  spoken  of  by  Paul,  which  shall 
exist  among  the  raised  saints,  (and  in  which  they  shall  be 
raised  {)  "  as  one  star  differeth  from  another  star  in  glory." 
See  also  Dan.  xii.  3,  and  Matt.  xiii.  43.  But  to  determine 
the  point  is  of  no  importance  to  the  argument. 

IV.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  the  Professor  is  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  But  some  man  will  say,  how  are  the  dead  raised 
up?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come?  Thou  fool,  that 
which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except  it  die.  And  that 
which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be, 
but  bare  grain :  it  may  chance  of  wheat,  or  of  some  other 
grain."  1  Cor.  xv.  35-37. 

In  order  to  perceive  the  force  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  in 
this  section  of  his  argument,  it  is  necessary  to  look  at  the 
questions  propounded,  and  his  reply  to  it.  The  question  is, 
"  How  are  the  dead  raised  up?  and  with  what  body  do  they 
come?  'ro/ft)  tTg  a-wjuctTt  «g;tov7-at<.  The  epithet  bestowed  upon 
the  objector  by  Paul  shows  that  the  objection  was  one  of 
mere  infidelity  or  heathen  philosophy,  which  perhaps  the 
Christians  mentioned  in  ver.  12,  had  been  perplexed  with. 
Therefore  says  Paul  to  the  objector,  "?§5v,  thou  fool.  Hence 
the  objection  was  not  one  intended  to  elicit  information,  but 
to  justify  doubt  or  unbelief:  q.  d.  How  is  it  possible  that 
the  dead  should  be  raised,  when  their  bodies  are  putrified, 
reduced  to  ashes,  decomposed  by  the  waters,  consumed  by 
fire,  devoured  by  wild  beasts  ?  &c.  How  is  it  possible  that 
they  should  arise  again  under  such  circumstances?  The 
two  questions  are  one,  and  the  <^«  is  here  used  to  give  force 
to  the  interrogation,  and  is  employed  for  this  purpose  par- 
ticularly in  the  repetition  of  a  question ;  see  e.  g.,  2  Cor.  vi. 
14-16;  which  idiom  it  is  important  here  to  notice  on  account 
of  the  turn  which  Professor  Bush  endeavours  to  give  to  the 
subject. 

This,  therefore,  is  the  question  or  objection:  and  Pro- 
fessor Bush  was  well  aware  that  a  great  deal  depended  upon 
understanding  it  rightly.     Hence  he  gives  it  the  following 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  205 

explanation:  "*  How  are  the  dead  raised,  and  with  what 
body  do  they  come?''  i.  e.,  not  with  what  body  do  they 
come  up  out  of  the  ground,  but  with  what  body  do  they 
come  down  from  heaven  ?"  p.  268.  Even  he  has  not  "  the 
length  of  rational  and  exegetical  hardihood"  to  deny  that 
the  question  in  these  two  clauses  is  one — the  latter  clause 
being  exegetical  of  the  former.  And  what  preposterous 
work  does  he  make  of  the  question  itself?  On  his  con- 
struction of  it,  it  must  read,  "  How  are  the  dead  raised 
down  from  heaven?"  The  man  who  would  ask  such  a 
question  must  truly  be  an  a^g'v;  so  much  so,  that  I  think 
Paul  would  not  have  regarded  his  questions  or  cavils  as  de- 
serving of  much  notice. 

But  taking  for  granted  that  the  fool  did  ask,  "  With  what 
bodies  do  the  dead  come  down  from  heaven?"  (though  if 
they  had  already  entered  on  their  resurrection-state,  or  been 
"  raised  from  the  dead,"  it  is  rather  mysterious  how  they 
should  be  called  "  the  dead,'''')  how  does  Paul  meet  the  ob- 
jection? What  reply  does  he  make  to  it?  for  he  surely  has 
made  some;  and  he  would  have  hardly  thought  it  worth 
bringing  forward  had  he  considered  it  worthy  of  no  answer. 
Why  he  begins  his  reply  by  stating  an  analogy  taken  from 
the  planting  and  springing  up  of  grain.  And  this  is,  ac- 
cording to  Professor  Bush,  to  show  the  objector  with  what 
body  the  dead  come  down  from  heaven?  Surely  the  ob- 
jector must  have  thought  (if  this  were  the  import  of  his  ob- 
jection) that  Paul  was  rather  hard  pushed,  and  was  trying 
to  creep  out  of  a  difficulty  without  being  able  even  to  put  a 
good  face  upon  it.  But  can  any  man  seriously  think  that 
Paul  would  have  answered  the  objection  thus? 

And  then  when  he  comes  to  apply  the  illustration  or 
analogy,  he  shows  the  futility  of  the  objection  by  remarking, 
*'  So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is  sown  in  cor- 
ruption, it  is  raised  (i.  e.,  according  to  the  Professor's  con- 
struction, it  comes  down  from  heaven)  in  incorruption,"  &c., 
&;c.  This  is  the  application  of  the  analogy  from  the  grain. 
And  well  might  the  objector  stare,  at  seeing  such  an  analogy 
as  that  of  the  grain  applied  to  illustrate  the  putting  of  some- 
thing into  earth,  and  having  its  fruit  come  down  from  hea- 
ven. We  need  not  pursue  this  subject  further  than  to 
remark,  that  Professor  Bush  himself  explains  "  raised,^''  in 
the  verses  last  referred  to,  to  mean,  not  the  coming  down  of 

18 


206  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

the  body  out  of  heaven,  but  of  its  elimination  at  death. 
Thus  refuting  his  own  absurd  construction  of  this  question. 

On  the  verses  which  stand  at  the  head  of  this  section, 
Professor  Bush  offers  more  remarks  than  on  all  those  pre- 
viously quoted  from  the  chapter:  but  they  are  remarks  not 
offered  in  elucidation  of  Paul,  but  in  the  vain  attempt  to  en- 
graft his  own  theory  on  the  apostolic  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection. But  the  best  way  to  treat  such  inconsecutive  and 
random  argument  as  he  offers  on  this  whole  chapter,  is  to 
subject  it  to  a  rigid  analysis.  And  this,  by  the  way,  is  the 
better  style  of  refuting  all  objection  and  argument  which 
present  not  a  fair  issue,  or  no  issue  at  all.  The  Professor 
in  the  first  place  intimates,  with  much  probability,  that  the 
analogy  employed  by  Paul  in  this  passage,  was  suggested 
by  our  Saviour's  language,  (see  John  xii.  24,)  *'  Except  a 
corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,"  &c.  He  thinks, 
too,  *'  that  an  analogy  drawn  from  insect  transmutations, 
would  have  been  a  more  striking"  illustration ;  but  ques- 
tions "  whether  the  facts  known  in  this  province  of  nature 
were  known  to  the  apostle."  pp.  174,  175.  Paine,  in  his 
"Age  of  Reason"  expresses  the  same  sentiment ;  but  Wat- 
son replies  justly,  that  "  had  he  known  as  much  as  any 
naturalist  in  Europe  does,  of  the  progress  of  an  animal 
from  one  state  to  another,  as  from  a  worm  to  a  butterfly,  I 
am  of  opinion  he  would  not  have  used  that  illustration  in 
preference  to  what  he  has  used,  which  is  obvious  and  satis- 
factory." Apology,  Letter  IX. 

The  Professor  next  proceeds  to  show  the  points  of  agree- 
ment and  of  disagreement  between  the  illustration  employed 
by  Paul  and  the  thing  illustrated.  There  is,  says  he,  a 
"  coincidence  in  the  fact  of '  dying.^  In  both  cases  there  is 
that  process  of  decay  and  dissolution  which  we  denominate 
deatJi.^^  He  then  "  aims  at  precision  of  ideas,  and  notes  the 
points  of  difference  as  well  as  of  similitude."  One  of  these 
"  points  of  difference"  is,  that  "  the  '  dying,'  which  the 
apostle  predicates  of  the  seed,  takes  place  subsequently  to 
the  sowing.  But  the  human  body  does  not  die  after  it  is 
deposited  in  the  dust.  It  is  previously  dead — *  for  the  body 
without  the  spirit  is  dead' — and  therefore  cannot  die  again." 
Here,  then,  the  depositing  of  the  seed  in  the  ground,  is,  ac- 
cording to  our  author,  intended  by  Paul  as  analogous  to  the 
depositing  of  the  body  in  the  earth :  and  the  "  point  of  dif- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  207 

ference"  which  he  finds,  is  that  the  seed  is  then  liting,  and 
the  body  is  dead.  But  how  will  this  harmonize  with  what 
he  offers  on  a  subsequent  page?  He  says  :  "  So  far  is  the 
apostle  from  teaching  that  the  body  is  '  sown'  by  being  de- 
posited in  the  grave.  It  is  sown  at  its  birth,  and  not  at 
its  DEATH."  p.  186.  I  shall  hereafter  remark  on  the  incor- 
rectness of  this  observation  ;  and  I  refer  to  it  here  merely  to 
show  how  easily  Professor  Bush  can  refute  his  own  cri- 
ticisms. For  if  the  body  is  sown  at  birth,  and  if  this  is 
what  Paul  here  teaches,  (as  our  author  asserts,)  then  the 
body  when  it  is  sown,  is  alive  as  well  as  the  grain.  What, 
then,  has  become  of  this  ^^ point  of  difference?^'' 

The  Professor  next  proceeds  to  remark,  that  *'  as  there  is 
something  in  the  plant  which  dies,  so  there  is  also  some- 
thing which  does  not  die :"  and  that  "  we  cannot,  of  course, 
suppose  that  the  apostle  intended  to  say  that  this  embryo 
died,  although  this  is  the  very  point  of  Thomas  Paine's  rail- 
ing accusation  against  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, and  on  the  ground  of  which  he  calls  St.  Paul  a 
fool;  contending,  that  if  the  seed  really  and  literally  died, 
no  plant  would  grow,  which  is  indeed  true"  says  Professor 
Bush.  "  But  this  evidently  is  not  the  apostle's  meaning ; 
and  if  the  skeptic  had  ever  put  his  hand  into  a  hill  of  young 
potatoes,"  &c.  pp.  175,  176.  Now  it  is  well  known  that 
the  Jews  thought  the  death  of  the  grain  was  necessary  to  its 
reproduction.  Hence  our  blessed  Redeemer  says,  in  a  pas- 
sage  referred  to  above,  "  except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the 
ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone:  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth 
forth  much  fruit."  And  this  process  of  decomposition  is 
what  they  meant  by  death;  and  it  surely  is  absurd  to  give 
the  term  another  and  a  different  meaning,  and  then  say  that 
Tom  Paine  was  right,  and  the  apostle  consequently  wrong 
in  the  use  of  it.  The  reply  of  Watson  to  the  "  paltry  and 
contemptible  cavilling"  of  Paine  in  this  instance,  is  so  ap- 
propriate in  its  application  to  the  foregoing  remarks  of  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  that  I  shall  merely  quote  it,  without  adding 
any  thing  further  than  to  express  my  regret  that  our  good 
friend  the  Professor  has  placed  himself  in  such  questionable 
society.  "  Every  husbandman  in  Corinth,"  says  the  Bishop, 
"  though  unable,  perhaps,  to  define  the  term  death,  would 
understand  the  apostle's  phrase  in  a  popular  sense,  and 
agree  with  him,  that  a  grain  of  wheat  must  become  rotten 
in  the  ground  before  it  could  sprout;   and  that,  as  God 


208  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

raised  from  a  rotten  grain  of  wheat,  the  roots,  the  stem,  the 
leaves,  the  ear  of  a  new  plant,  he  might  also  cause  a  new 
body  to  spring  up  from  the  rotten  carcass  in  the  grave."  Let- 
ter IX. 

It  is  useful  once  in  a  while  for  the  mariner,  as  he  passes 
onward  to  the  destined  port,  to  look  at  his  compass  and 
chart,  and  institute  a  reckoning,  in  order  to  ascertain  not 
only  how  far  he  has  proceeded,  but  whether  he  be  truly  in 
the  right  way :  and  this  is  the  more  important  if  his  way 
be  in  the  vicinity  of  shoals  and  quicksands,  and  the  atmos. 
phere  be  filled  with  fog.  We  may  perhaps  here  act  wisely, 
if  we  imitate  his  example.  Following  in  the  wake  of  our 
author,  we  have  had  a  foggy  atmosphere  ever  since  we 
started.  We  have  opened  up  the  shallows  (see  ^n.  I., 
144-147)  thus  far;  but  here  we  deem  it  important  to  pause 
for  a  moment  and  examine  our  chart. 

The  question  which  Paul  is  discussing  is,  "  How  are  the 
dead  raised  up?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come?"  We 
have  remarked,  that  <^s  is  used  here  to  give  force  to  the  in- 
terrogation. It  is  used  as  >«§  in  verse  13.  As  we  have  re- 
marked above  also,  there  can  be  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  the  questions  are  one — that  iyi^ovrctt  and  8g;tovT*/  both 
refer  to  the  same  thing,  and  mean,  prodeimt,  or  come  forth. 
The  objector,  therefore,  supposed  that  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  (not  the  future  state  of  man,  as  Professor  Bush 
seems  to  think,)  is  impossible.  And  hence  the  strength  of 
his  objection  consists  in  this : — If  the  dead  are  raised  again, 
what  body  can  they  have,  with  which  to  return  to  life? 
But  they  have  no  ^^^^,  or  body  now,  for  (by  hypothesis)  it 
has  been  burned  up,  or  devoured  by  beasts.  And  hence 
the  dead  are  not  able  to  return  to  life  again.  This  is  the  ob- 
jection ;  and  it  is  easy  to  imagine  how  delighted  those  old 
philosophising  objectors  would  have  been,  could  they  then 
have  had  a  copy  of  Professor  JBush's  Anastasis. 

This  is  the  question,  nor  must  we  permit  ourselves  to  lose 
sight  of  it  in  this  section.  The  Professor,  in  his  remarks 
on  Paul's  reply,  perpetually  loses  sight  of  it.  But  while 
we  continue  to  analyze  what  he  has  offered,  we  must  still 
carefully  note  the  direction  to  which  the  compass  points. 

The  single  object  of  Paul  in  this  branch  of  his  argu- 
ment, is,  by  means  of  the  illustration  taken  from  the  sowing 
and  springing  up  of  grain,  to  repel  or  refute  the  assertion 
of  the  skeptic,  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  impos- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  209 

sible.  I  say  "  body"  because  even  Professor  Bush  will  not 
venture  to  deny  that  the  objection  is  based  upon  the  asserted 
impossibility,  not  of  the  future  state  of  man,  (which  would 
turn  the  reply  of  the  apostle  into  sheer  absurdity,)  but  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body.  And  if  this  be  the  force  of 
the  objection,  then  Paul's  reply  contemplates  that  resur- 
rection. It  is,  therefore,  the  impossibility  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body  which  was  asserted  by  the  objector; 
and,  by  consequence,  the  clear  possibility  of  it  which  Paul 
is  maintaining.  He  enters  into  no  philosophical  specula- 
tions ;  but  states  a  plain  matter  of  fact.  The  grain  which 
you  sow,  says  he,  dies — it  decays ;  until  it  is  no  longer 
grain,  but  a  mere  putrescent  mass.  So,  also,  it  is  with  the 
human  body ;  it  decays,  and  is  a  body  in  form  no  more. 
But  God  gives  to  each  seed  which  you  sow,  a  body;  (see 
ver.  38,  which  Professor  Bush,  with  an  unfairness  which 
nothing  can  justify,  and  the  object  of  which  is  perfectly  ap- 
parent, has  separated  from  its  connexion.)  It  is  not  nature 
which  does  it,  but  God  by  his  mighty  power.  He  raises 
the  beautiful  stalk  and  ear  from  the  putrid  mass  of  the 
naked  grain  which  you  have  sown.  And  the  God  who  is 
able  to  do  this,  is  able  also  to  raise  from  the  decayed  body 
of  man,  the  glorious  body  of  which  I  speak.  And  you  are 
an  a<?>§':v)  or  a  fool,  says  Paul  to  the  objector,  if  you  do  not 
see  that  the  God  who  does  the  one  can  do  the  other. 

The  question,  as  to  what  amount  of  the  grain  of  seed 
which  is  sown  enters  into  the  transformed  body  of  the  bladcj 
stalk,  and  ear,  is  a  question  which  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  point  which  Paul  is  elucidating.  In  meeting  the  objec- 
tion, based  upon  an  alleged  impossibility,  he  proceeds  upon 
the  assumption,  which  even  the  skeptic  durst  not  refuse  to 
grant,  that  there  is  a  clear  identity  between  the  seed  sown, 
and  the  body  which  God  gives  it.  Such  an  identity  as 
would  justify  the  husbandman,  as  he  looked  over  his  field 
of  grain  after  it  was  grown,  in  saying,  there  is^the  grain 
which  I  sowed  last  Fall.  Nor  does  Paul  attempt  to  tell  what 
constitutes  this  identity.  The  indisputable  fact  itself  is  suffi- 
cient. And  so,  also,  is  it  with  the  human  body,  as  he  pro- 
ceeds to  remark  in  vers.  42-44,  a  passage  which  will  come 
up  for  consideration  hereafter. 

These  remarks  will  serve  to  show  how  inappropriate  are 
the  criticisms  of  Professor  Bush  on  pp.  176-182 ;  in  which  he 
takes  up  for  consideration  the  question  of  the  gernif  from  which 
18* 


210  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

the  resurrection  body,  as  it  is  asserted  by  some,  will  be  ela- 
borated. But  the  point  which  Paul  is  here  considering  calls 
for  no  such  discussion,  and  therefore  I  shall  pass  it  by  with 
a  few  brief  remarks.  It  is  upon  this  utter  misunderstanding 
or  misapprehension  of  the  point  of  the  apostle's  reasoning 
that  the  Professor  builds  those  fanciful  notions  (taken  from 
Goethe)  of  the  spiritual  body  being  a  germ,  and  leaving  the 
material  body  as  a  germ,  and  elaborating  for  itself  a  spiritual 
corporeity  from  the  spiritual  elements  by  which  it  is  sur- 
rounded, &c.  &c.,  and  upon  which  he  dwells,  and  rings  the 
changes  etiam  ad  nauseam.  The  argument  of  Paul  has  no 
more  to  do  with  such  notions  than  it  has  with  Alnaschar's 
dreams.  But  let  us  attend  to  a  few  of  the  more  important 
remarks  of  our  author  on  this  subject. 

He  observes  that  "we  cannot  understand  the  apostle's 
reasoning,  unless  he  means  to  ajirm  (!)  that  there  is  some- 
thing of  the  nature  of  a  germ  which  emanates  from  the  de- 
funct body,  and  forms  either  the  substance  or  the  nucleus  of 
the  future  resurrection  body."  p.  178.  And  from  this  he 
would  infer  that  the  spiritual  body  is  "  eliminated  at  death." 
But  Paul,  as  above  remarked,  means  to  affirm  nothing  on  the 
subject.  His  argument  in  no  sense  calls  for  it.  He  denies 
the  assertion  of  the  fool,  by  stating  that  God  would  provide 
the  body  when  it  was  needed :  which  he  also  illustrates  by 
showing  that  God  provides  the  future  body  of  the  grain  that 
is  sown  and  has  putrified.  But  as  to  the  manner  of  his  pro- 
ducing it,  he  says  nothing  in  either  case. 

The  Professor  also  rernarks,  that  "  the  only  germ  in  the 
human  body  answering  to  the  germ  in  the  plant,  and  upon 
which  the  apostle's  comparison  is  built,  is  the  spiritual  body 
itself."  p.  179.  Assertions  are  easily  made;  but  they  are 
of  little  account  if  wholly  destitute  of  proof,  as  in  this  case. 
The  apostle  says  nothing  about  germs  in  either  case,  and 
therefore  builds  no  comparison  upon  them. 

Our  author  again  remarks :  "  We  cannot  suppose  Paul  to 
have  had  recourse  to  the  comparison,  without  having  in  view 
some  point  of  resemblance  in  the  two  cases.  That  point  his 
own  words  certainly  develope.  In  regard  to  the  grain,  he 
affirms,  '  Thou  sowest  not  the  body  that  shall  be.'  What  is 
the  correlative  to  this,  unless  it  be,  that  *  the  body  that  dies 
is  not  the  same  body  that  shall  be  at  or  after  the  resurrec- 
tion?'" p.  179.  But  Professor  Bush  misapprehends  the 
apostle's  argument;  the  point  of  comparison,  is  in  respect  to 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  211 

God's  furnishing  the  future  body  in  both  cases.  It  is  as 
easy,  says  Paul,  for  him  to  do  the  one  as  the  other.  And 
the  fact  of  the  decay  of  the  body  which  takes  place,  is  no 
more  an  objection  to  its  being  reproduced  by  God,  than  the 
same  fact  would  be  in  the  case  of  the  grain.  It  is  amusing 
to  notice  the  Professor's  repeated  refutation  of  himself.  We 
have  here  another  instance.  He  has,  as  above  noticed, 
already  explained  "  sowing"  to  mean  birth;  and  now  he 
finds  that  death  is  "  the  correlative"  of  putting  the  seed  in 
the  earth.  The  remark  of  Paul  "  Thou  sowest  not  the  body 
that  shall  be,"  is  explained  by  himself  in  the  very  phrase 
from  which  Professor  Bush  has  cut  off  this  part:  "Thou 
sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be,  but  bare  grain," 
d\Ka  yv/uvov  zozkov.  Granum  sine  culmo,  sine  arista,  as  Gro- 
tius  explains  it.  It  is  merely  a  contrast  between  the  naked 
unclothed  grain,  and  the  beautiful  form  with  which  God 
shall  thereafter  clothe  it. 

The  Professor  again  remarks:  "Admit,  for  a  moment, 
that  the  life  itself  of  the  body  ceases,  and  that  it  is  only  after 
long  ages  of  time  that  the  succeeding  corporeity  ensues,  and 
the  analogy  is  at  once  destroyed.  The  true  life  of  the  seed 
is  not  for  an  instant  intermitted,  even  in  the  midst  of  its 
dying;  and  we  maintain,  that  it  is  only  by  the  development 
of  the  spiritual  body  at  death,  and  not  from  the  entombed 
relics  in  the  grave,  that  any  parallelism  in  the  two  cases  can 
be  recognized."  p.  180.  But  we  have  already  remarked 
that  the  comparison  of  the  apostle  and  that  of  Professor 
Bush  differ  toto  codo.  Paul  makes  no  such  comparison  as 
the  Professor  institutes;  and  therefore  it  would  be  strange 
indeed  if  he  could  see  any  parallelism.  "  The  analogy  that 
is  destroyed"  therefore,  is  not  that  instituted  by  Paul,  but  by 
the  Professor. 

This  important  passage,  therefore,  not  only  fails  to  furnish 
our  author  the  least  support,  hut  it  bears  the  most  decided 
testimony  to  the  doctrine  which  he  has  endeavoured  to  im- 
pugn. 

V.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  Professor  Bush  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "  But  God  giveth  it  a  body  as  it  hath  pleased  him, 
and  to  every  seed  his  own  body.  All  flesh  is  not  the  same 
flesh ;  but  there  is  one  kind  of  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of 
beasts,  another  of  fishes,  and  another  of  birds.  There  are 
also  celestial  bodies,  and  bodies  terrestrial — but  the  glory  of 
the  celestial  is  one,  and  the  glory  of  the  terrestrial  another. 


212       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

There  is  one  glory  of  the  sun,  and  another  glory  of  the 
moon,  and  another  glory  of  the  stars;  for  one  star  differeth 
from  another  star  in  glory."  1  Cor.  xv.  38-41. 

We  have  already  remarked  on  our  author's  separating 
the  first  of  these  verses  from  its  immediate  connexion:  and 
before  we  proceed  to  discuss  what  he  has  said  on  this  branch 
of  the  apostle's  argument,  we  shall  follow  the  apostle  him- 
self. He  now  drops  the  illustration  taken  from  the  grain, 
and  anticipates  an  objection  which  he  saw  would  be  offered 
to  the  doctrine  itself — or  rather  perhaps,  to  present  another 
view,  or  illustration  of  the  doctrine,  by  which  to  obviate  the 
objection  stated  in  ver.  35.  And  the  connecting  link  between 
this  argument  and  the  one  taken  from  the  grain  is  this — 
'  There  is  a  diversity  of  bodies,  and  I  have  shown  that  it  is 
not  absurd  to  believe  that  a  dead  body  may  be  revived  in 
another  form.'  He  then  proceeds.  '  But  omitting  further  re- 
mark on  the  grain,  let  us  come  directly  to  the  subject  of  ani- 
mated nature.  You  say  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the 
decayed  and  dissolved  flesh  of  animals  can  be  revived — and 
therefore,  as  man  is  an  animal,  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose 
his  body  will  ever  rise  again.  But  stop — there  are  different 
kinds  of  flesh.  One  appertains  to  men,  another  to  beasts, 
another  to  fish,  and  another  to  birds:  and  in  fact  this  is  a 
diversity  which  you  find  in  the  heavenly  bodies  as  well  as  in 
things  on  earth.  You  are  compelled  to  agree  with  me,  there- 
fore, that  there  is  this  difference — and  I  willingly  agree  with 
you  that  there  is  to  be  no  resurrection  of  beasts,  birds,  &c. 
But  the  flesh  of  man,  (created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  re- 
deemed by  the  blood  of  his  Son,)  is  far  different  from  the 
flesh  of  brutes.  Man  is  also  compounded  of  body  and  spirit, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  the  brutes.  And  therefore  there 
is  not  the  same  necessity  for  their  bodies  to  be  raised.  Here, 
then,  is  a  difference  not  only  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  destiny. 
The  one  requires  a  body,  for  the  spirit  lives.  In  the  other 
case  there  is  no  spirit  to  live,  and  a  body  is,  therefore,  not 
needed.'  And  having  obviated  this  objection,  the  apostle 
continues  his  argument  in  ver.  42,  seq.:  "  So  also  is  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead,"  &c. 

Our  author  commences  his  criticism  on  these  verses  with 
a  remark  of  his  own,  and  another  of  Mr.  Locke,  both  aim- 
ing to  present  a  construction  of  ver.  38,  that  might  enervate 
the  argument  which  it  furnishes,  (taken  in  its  proper  con- 
nexion,) against  their  notions  of  the  resurrection.   But  we  are 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  213 

content  to  take  the  passage  to  mean,  that  the  body  which  is 
produced  from  the  grain,  is  the  body  given  it  by  God.  This 
is  what  Paul  asserts,  and  neither  Professor  Bush  nor  Mr. 
Locke  have  offered  a  syllable  which  can  set  aside  its  plain 
and  obvious  import.  It  is  abundantly  sufficient  for  the  argu- 
ment. 

In  order  to  favour  his  theory,  the  Professor,  remarking 
on  the  phrase,  "  there  are  also  celestial  bodies,"  o-^^at*  «,Toy- 
gdvm,  ver.  40,  observes :  "  It  is,  we  believe,  not  unusual  for 
expositors  to  understand  the  phrase,  '  bodies  celestial,'  of 
the  sun,  moon,  and  planets.  But  this  is  entirely  a  modern 
diction.  There  is  no  evidence,  we  believe,  that  the  original 
o-JjfAstrct  was  ever  used  in  this  sense  by  the  ancient  writers, 
sacred  or  profane.  The  *  bodies,'  of  which  the  apostle  here 
speaks,  are  human  bodies,  and,  as  he  says,  there  are  (not 
shall  be)  celestial  human  bodies,  what  other  inference  can 
we  draw,  than  that  they  are  the  glorified  resurrection-bodies 
in  which  the  risen  saints  now  exist?"  p.  182.  But  what 
does  he  mean  by  "  entirely  a  modern  diction?"  He  will  find 
the  phrase  so  expounded  (to  go  no  further  back)  by  Erasmus, 
300  years  ago;  and  by  Estius,  and  by  Parous,  and  Crellius, 
and  Poole,  and  a  whole  mass  of  other  expositors  not  gene- 
rally reckoned  amongst  the  moderns.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a 
"  modern  diction,"  though  our  alhor's  theory  might  require 
it  to  be  so. 

Nor  is  he  more  successful  in  his  effort  to  prove  that 
a-J^fAatrct  cannot  be  here  employed  metaphorically  by  the  apos- 
tle. Josephus  employs  the  word  with  a  latitude  that  suffi- 
ciently justifies  such  a  usage.  In  De  Bell.  II.,  cap.  II.,  §.  5, 
speaking  of  Archelaus,  he  says :  "  He  desires  to  obtain  the 
shadow  of  that  kingly  authority,  of  which  he  had  already 
seized  the  substance,"  (or  body,)  o-ntav  Aimcrofxim  Cct<rt\uAc,  h 
vigTrcia-iv  satvTw  to  trX/^at.  So  also  in  the  Procm  to  the  same  work, 
§.  5,  he  uses  the  expression,  to  <rZy.d  th?  iVro^/*?,  "  a  body  of 
history,"  referring  to  a  true  narration  as  distinguished  from 
one  that  is  false  and  fictitious.  The  same  term  he  employs 
also  in  speaking  of  David's  connecting  the  citadel  with  the 
lower  city,  by  which  he  made  it  one  body.  Antiq.,  lib.  VII., 
cap.  3,  §.  2.  Diodorus  Siculus,  also,  includes  in  the  meta- 
phorical use  of  the  term,  the  sun,  stars,  &c.,  a-nv  (rZfxA  tmc 
Twv  oKuv  <pv<ria>c,  Hb.  I.,  cap.  11.  The  Latins,  also,  employ  the 
corresponding  term  in  their  own  own  language  with  equal 
latitude  of  signification.     They  speak  of  aquoe  corpus,  Lu- 


214       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

cret.  de  Rerum  Nat.  II.,  232;  and  they  apply  the  same 
term  in  designation  of  a  tree,  a  rock,  a  city,  nation,  &c., 
&c.,  so  frequently  that  it  would  be  idle  to  specify  instances. 
Now  in  all  these  instances,  (or  to  speak  only  of  the  refer- 
ences to  the  Greek  writers,)  <^^y-^  is  used  metaphorically, 
Professor  Bush  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Such  an 
use  of  it  is,  therefore,  allowable.  And  hence  it  is  allowable 
for  Paul  to  employ  it  in  this  manner. 

But  we  cannot  consent  to  rest  the  question  here.  The 
metaphorical  "use  of  '^'^h-'*-  and  corpvs  is  frequent  among  the 
Romans  and  Greeks :  and  that  Paul  employs  the  Greek 
term  to  designate  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  is  plain  from 
the  explanation  of  his  meaning  which  he  gives  in  ver.  41. 
But  where,  let  me  ask,  do  the  Greeks  or  Latins  ever  employ 
either  of  these  terms  to  designate  a  tertium  quid?  for  such 
Professor  Bush  declares  the  resurrection-6oQ^ies  to  be.  This 
surely  is  a  "  modern  diction  :"  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that 
he  can  find  no  instance  of  such  an  usage  in  any  of  the 
writers  referred  to.  How  vain,  then,  not  to  say,  prepos- 
terous, are  the  inferences  which  he  has  attempted  to  deduce 
in  favour  of  his  theory,  from  an  explanation  of  the  term, 
which  is  not  only  destitute  of  any  positive  evidence  in  its 
favour,  but  has  the  entire  usage  of  language  against  it. 

On  page  183  he  ventures  also  most  egregiously  to  mis- 
represent the  apostle,  by  saying,  that  "  he  proceeds  to  show, 
by  similitudes  drawn  from  various  natural  objects,  that  man 
may  have  a  different  body  fitted  to  the  different  state  in 
which  he  enters  at  death.''''  Now  there  is  not  in  the  whole 
chapter  the  remotest  allusion  to  any  such  idea  whatever. 
It  is  painful  to  be  compelled  to  contradict  my  friend  so 
roundly.  But  an  author  who  will  venture  upon  such  utterly 
baseless  assertions  must  expect  to  be  contradicted. 

The  Professor  closes  his  remarks  on  these  verses  by 
quoting  an  excellent  note  (which  in  no  sense  justifies  his 
theory,  however,)  from  the  commentary  of  Mr.  Barnes,  in 
loco:  and  happy  had  it  been  for  him  had  he,  in  expounding 
the  argument  of  this  chapter,  only  followed  the  principles 
which  guided  that  popular  expositor. 

VI.  The  next  passage  quoted  and  commented  on,  is  the 

following :  "  So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     It  is 

.  "  •       .    .        .     ,  .     .  .         .   . 

sown  m  corruption,  it  is  raised  m  incorruption :  it  is  sown 

in  dishonour,  it  is  raised  in  glory;  it  is  sown  in  weakness, 

it  is  raised  in  power :  it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED,  215 

a  spiritual  body.     There  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a 
spiritual  body."  1  Cor.  xv.  42-44. 

The  first  clause  of  this  passage  contains  what  critics 
call  a  metonomy  of  the  adjunct  for  the  subject.  For  ^vo- 
a-Tci(rig  tZv  ven^Zv  is  here  to  be  taken  for  those  who  arise  from 
the  dead.  It  is  a  figure  often  used  by  Paul,  e.g.,  circum- 
cision often  means  those  who  have  been  circumcised ;  Rom. 
ii.  25,  and  iii.  30,  and  iv.  9,  12;  Eph.  ii.  11;  Phil.  iii.  3,5, 
and  vice  versa,  with  uncircumcision.  Election  is  also  taken 
for  the  elect ;  see  Rom.  xi.  7.  The  import  of  the  phrase, 
therefore,  is,  so  shall  things  be  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead — the  body,  which  previously  had  decayed,  &c.,  &c., 
shall  then  be  thus,  or  so. 

The  apostle  here  begins  to  apply  the  illustrations  which 
he  had  been  presenting — q.  d,  '  The  different  kinds  of  grain 
which  are  sown,  though  they  decay,  yet  do  not  mingle. 
A  mysterious  arrangement  of  Providence  keeps  them  dis- 
tinct. That  same  Providence  keeps  the  body,  or  flesh,  of 
man  distinct,  though  it  decay,  or,  to  human  appearance,  is 
utterly  consumed,  or  incorporated  with  other  bodies.  Now 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  that  which  is  thus  sown 
in  corruption,  is  raised  in  incorruptibility,'  &c.,  &c.  But 
here  we  are  met  with  a  "  take  heed"  from  Professor  Bush; 
who  begins  his  criticism  on  this  passage  as  follows :  "  The 
true  purport  of  this  language  is  not  so  obvious  as  might  at 
first  blush  appear.  The  point  of  difficulty  is,  to  determine 
whether  the  *  sowing,'  as  applied  to  the  body,  is  to  be 
understood  of  its  consignment  to  the  dust,  or,  as  Whitby 
suggests,  of  the  corrupt  and  corruptible  nature  in  which 
man  is  born  into  the  world."  p.  184.  It  is  a  "  point  of 
difficulty,"  however,  which  he  feels  no  difficulty  in  deter- 
mining. With  little  or  no  "  argument  from  reason,"  or 
Scripture  either,  he  soon  decides  that  "  the  *  sowing,'  there- 
fore, is  our  birth  in  Adam,  or  in  the  nature  of  Adam,  and 
our  resurrection  but  the  finished  result  of  our  birth  by  re- 
generation in  Christ."  "  So  far  is  the  apostle  from  teach- 
ing, that  the  body  is  *  sown,'  by  being  deposited  in  the 
grave.  It  is  sown  at  its  birth,  and  not  at  its  death.''"'  pp. 
185,  186. 

It  is  not  singular  that  Professor  Bush  should  so  strenu- 
ously insist  on  this  point,  for  he  well  knew  that  unless  it 
could  be  carried,  his  whole  theory  would  share  the  fate  of 
every  other  castle  built  merely  in  the  air;  and  which  has 


216  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

elaborated  for  itself  an  aerial  corporeity,  from  the  aerial  ele- 
ments by  which  it  is  surrounded — that  is,  it  would  be  sadly 
in  want  of  a  foundation.  But  let  us  canvass  his  reasons  for 
announcing  this  conclusion.     He  says 

1.  "  The  dying  affirmed  of  the  seed  is  not  strictly  parallel 
of  the  dying  which  holds  good  of  the  body.  In  the  one  case 
it  takes  place  after  the  subject  is  deposited  in  the  earth,  in 
the  other  before.''^  p.  185.  But  how  would  such  a  conside- 
ration tend  to  show  that  therefore  "  the  sowing"  referred  to 
must  mean  "  our  birth  in  Adam?"  There  is  an  awful  hia- 
tus between  the  premises  and  conclusion,  and  one  which 
Professor  Bush  can  never  pass  over.  The  proper  inference 
from  this  asserted  failure  in  the  "  strict  parallel,"  is,  as  we 
have  shown  already,  that  Paul  intended  no  such  parallel. 
He  does  not  refer  to  the  "  grain"  or  "  flesh"  for  the  purpose 
of  drawing  out  imaginary  parallels,  but  to  refute  the  ob- 
jector's assertion  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  impos- 
sible. And  he  does  this  by  a  simple  reference  to  an  undis- 
puted fact.  The  question  as  to  "  germs,"  &c.  (fee.  has 
nothing  to  do  with  his  argument.  The  objector  affirmed 
that  a  dead  and  decayed  body  could  not  be  made  to  revive  : 
Paul  denies  the  assertion,  and  refutes  it  by  a  reference  to 
the  grain.  And  this  is  the  sum  total  of  the  ^^  parallelism^'' 
which  he  draws. 

2.  "  But,^  says  the  Professor,  "  another  consideration  of 
still  greater  weight  is  derived  from  the  contrast  which  follows 
between  Adam  and  Christ.  *  And  so  it  is  written,  the  first 
Adam  was  made  a  living  soul,  Oa:«  f^'^*»)  the  last  Adam  a 
quickening  spirit.^  But  how  does  this  illustrate  the  case  of 
the  natural  and  spiritual  body?  The  answer  to  this  is  sug- 
gested by  the  import  of  the  terms  which  the  writer  employs. 
The  original  word  for  soul  {4'^X")  is  that  which  is  always  em- 
ployed by  the  apostle  to  denote  the  animal  soul,  or  the  life 
of  the  natural  or  animal  man,  as  contradistinguished  from 
spiritual.  It  is  the  substantive  from  which  is  formed  the 
adjective  >;t'Ko?,  always  translated  in  the  New  Testament 
natural.*     Now  the  apostle  had  just  said  that  '  it  is  sown  a 

*  This  declaration  may  serve  as  a  tolerably  good  illustration  of  the 
carelessness  with  which  Professor  Bush  makes  assertions.  As  to  its 
being  "  always  translated,"  &c.,  it  is  used  but  three  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  besides  in  the  verses  before  us ;  to  wit,  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  and 
Jas.  iii.  15,  and  Jude  19,  in  only  one  of  which  it  is  translated  "  na- 
tural:' 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  217 

natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.'  Here  he  refers 
to  the  origin  of  these  two  bodies.  The  one  is  derived  from 
Adam,  the  other  from  Christ."  p.  185. 

On  a  former  page  we  have  clearly  explained  the  import 
o^^vxMoc  as  used  in  the  J^few  Testament.  It  means  the  soul 
of  the  unrenewed  man  as  distinguished  from  the  regenerate. 
And  as  to  this  "consideration  of  still  greater  weight,"  which 
comprises  every  thing  that  Professor  Bush. has  offered  in 
defence  of  his  construction  of  o-na'g®,  it  will  be  found,  on  exa- 
mination, to  have  no  more  weight  than  the  one  which  pre- 
cedes it.  For  in  the^rs^  place,  he  has  attempted  a  distinction 
which  is  subversive  of  his  whole  theory  of  a  spiritual  body, 
possessed  in  this  life,  and  eliminated  at  death  by  natural 
laws.  As  we  have  abundantly  shown  already,  he  makes 
the  spiritual  body  as  much  a  part  of  man  in  the  present  life, 
as  his  material  body:  and  of  course  the  one  is  as  much  de- 
rived from  Adam  as  the  other.  His  theory  throughout 
assumes  that  the  doctrine  of  immortality  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  resurrection:  and  therefore  if  man  be  im- 
mortal, he  obtains  his  immortal  part  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  Adam  as  well  as  his  mortal.  A  reference  to 
the  delineation  of  his  theory  in  chap.  II.,  part  I.,  above,  wilt 
show  this  at  once.  And  therefore  to  say  that  man  receives 
his  animal  body  from  Adam,  and  his  spiritual  body  from 
Christ,  is,  according  to  this  theory,  to  talk  sheer  nonsense. 
How  is  a  spiritual  body  eliminated  by  mere  natural  laws,  and 
yet  derived  from  the  mere  grace  or  mercy  of  Christ !  The 
resurrection  of  the  body,  being  a  pure  miracle,  is  effected  by 
the  power  and  grace  of  Christ ;  and  natural  laws  have  no- 
thing to  do  with  it. 

But  secondly:  according  to  this  theory  the  spiritual  body 
ife  sown^  as  well  a«  the  animal  body.  The  *'  sowing,"  says 
Professor BUsh,  refers  to  our  birth:  and  at  our  birth,  even  he 
himself  will  admit,  we  have  a  a-^f*<^,  a  4"A:"v  and  a  5ry«yyua-, 
a  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  Now  when  the  spirit  leaves  the 
body  at  death,  it  leaves  it  with  a  "  tertium  quid— an  inter- 
mediate something  between  the  cogitative  faculty  and  the 
gross  body,"  p.  78;  (that  is,  something  between  matter,  and 
the  "  bare  power  of  thought/"  p.  72,)  and  this  intermediate 
something,  "  is  intimately  related  to  the  spiritual  life  im- 
planted in  regeneration;"  (p.  140,)  "  it  constitutes  the  inner 
essential  vitality  of  our  present  bodies,  and  it  lives  again  in 
another  state,  because  it  never  dies."  p.  70.  "We  know  that 

19 


218       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

there  are  these  subtle  elements  mixed  up  in  the  grosser  ma' 
terials  of  oUr  bodies,  with  which  our  mental  operations  are 
connected,  and  upon  which  they  are  dependent,  and  we  cannot 
know  but  that  they  may  exist  separate  from  our  bodies,  and 
form  in  fact,  in  the  strictest  propriety  of  speech,  a  spiritual 
body."  p.  77.  Now  if  all  this  be  so,  (and  Professor  Bush 
surely  will  not  question  it,)  then  it  follows  irresistibly  that  we 
derive  our  spiritual  body  from  Adam,  no  less  than  our  natural 
body.  And,  therefore,  if"  sowing"  here,  relates  to  our  birth, 
as  the  Professor  asserts,  then,  Paul's  language  amounts  to 
no  more  than  this,  that  the  natural  body  and  the  spiritual 
body  are  both  sown.  Where,  then,  is  this  derivation  of  the 
one  from  Adam  and  the  other  from  Christ?  And  such  being 
the  reasons,  therefore,  by  which  Professor  Bush  seeks  to 
justify  his  reference  of  <r7ni^ce  to  birth,  and  not  to  burial,  it 
is  clear  that  he  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  justification  for 
doing  so. 

He  refers  to  Locke  and  Whitby,  also,  as  seeming  to  coun- 
tenance such  a  rendering:  great  names,  to  be  sure,  but  we 
should  rather  have  had  their  reasons  than  their  authority. 
The  first  vestige  that  I  can  find  of  this  sentiment  is  the  broad  as- 
sertion of  it  in  cap.  VIII.,  §.  II.  of  the  Compendiolum  Socini- 
anismi,  (Amsterd.  1598,)  to  which  we  have  referred,  and  from 
which  we  have  largely  quoted  in  part  I.,  chap.  II.,  §  2, 
above.  The  same  exposition  is  s^iven  by  the  two  great 
champions  of  this  school,  Crellius  and  Slichtingius,  in  their 
Commentaries  on  1  Corinthians.  Conrad  Vorstius,  whom 
the  Arminians  of  the  early  part  of  the  17th  century,  la- 
boured so  earnestly  to  have  appointed  to  the  Professorship  of 
Theology  in  the  Leyden  University,  and  who  was  a  sort  of 
tertium  quid  between  them  and  the  Socinians,  being  neither 
one  thing  nor  the  other,  (see  Narratio  de  Vit.  et  Script.  D. 
Dav.  Parei,  pp.  17,  18,  folio,  and  Scott's  Synod  of  Dort,  pp. 
37-44,)  was  the  next  to  adopt  the  exposition.  He  was  a 
vir  acutus  atque  eruditus,  but  wa-s  all  the  time  like  a  vessel 
at  sea  without  chart,  compass,  or  helm — for  like  Priestley,  he 
neither  knew  the  latitude  nor  longitude  of  his  theological  sen- 
timents, and  had  no  idea  where  he  should  stop  in  his  down- 
ward career.  The  Arminians  regarded  him  as  a  man  of 
piety  and  learning,  and  hence  Locke  and  Whitby,  thinking 
that  their  theories  of  the  resurrection  could  be  more  satis- 
factorily sustained  by  the  adoption  of  this  criticism,  did  not 
hesitate  to  adopt  it:  and  from  them  it  has  descended  to  Pro- 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  219 

fessor  Bush,  to  whom  the  fact  of  its  being  "  entirely  a  mO' 
dern  notion^^''  seemed  to  form  no  very  serious  objection  to 
his  favouring  it  with  his  support. 

The  fact  of  its  being  a  criticism  originating  with  the 
Fratres  PolonicB^  can  constitute  of  itself  no  rational  ground 
of  objection  against  it;  yet  the  fact  of  their  having  invented 
it  in  order  to  save  their  theory,  which  is  so  wholly  prepos- 
terous and  anti-christian,  forms  the  best  of  reasons  why 
every  Christian  expositor  should  hesitate  before  adopting  it, 
and  subject  it  to  a  thorough  investigation.  Had  Professor 
Bush  done  this  in  the  present  case,  in  the  spirit  with  which 
he  penned  his  admirable  "  Notes  on  Genesis,"  (and  unin- 
fluenced, of  course,  by  any  tertium  quid  theory,)  he  would 
no  more  have  perilled  his  well  earned  reputation,  by  en- 
dorsing such  a  specimen  of  philological  nonsense,  than  he 
would  have  said  that  truth  and  falsehood  are  the  same. 

1.  In  reply  to  this  criticism  I  remark,  Jirst,  that  it  is 
pleasing  to  see  how  orthodox  its  Socinian  and  Pelagian  au- 
thors (in  which  catalogue,  however,  we  are  very  far  from  in- 
sinuating that  Professor  Bush  ought  to  be  placed,)  can  at 
times  become  on  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Every  one 
knows  how  pathetic  their  appeals  to  public  sympathy  have 
been  on  the  subject  of  the  Calvinistic  view  of  this  doctrine. 
"  The  poor  little  innocents  that  come  into  the  world  as  pure 
as  angels,"  have  been  pitied  and  compassionated,  and  de- 
fended against  the  "  cruel  doctrine^^^  by  valiant  champions, 
whose  harness,  having  been  buckled  on,  could  not  be  laid 
aside  until  victory  should  declare  in  favour  of  the  poor 
little  injured  and  cruelly  slandered  infants.  But  now  the 
cause  of  these  little  ones  seems  to  be  hopeless  indeed ;  for 
their  advocates  are  willing  to  parley  with  the  enemy,  and 
abandon  the  fortress  of  defence,  if  only  he  will  consent  to  let 
them  peaceably  get  rid  of  their  own  bodies.  This  granted, 
the  infants  may  take  care  of  themselves. 

The  "  sowing"  here,  say  these  men,  "  is  our  birth  in 
Adam:"  and  the  passage  must,  therefore,  mean  that  "  man 
is  born  in  corruption,  (<|)6«§a,)  he  is  raised  in  incorruption  : 
he  is  born  in  dishonour,  (un^U,)  he  is  raised  in  glory:  he  is 
born  in  weakness,  (^Ci.<r6mU,)  he  is  raised  in  power:  he  is  born 
a  natural  body,  [^ZfAa  -^vxticovy)  he  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 
If  a-nigo)  refer  to  birth,  this  must,  indisputably,  be  the  mean- 
ing of  the  passage.  Let  us  then  look  at  the  import  of  these 
terms,  and,  by  the  aid  of  our  Socinian  and  Pelagian  friends, 


220       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

we  shall  have  at  least  one  passage  that  cannot  but  settle  the 
question,  whether  mankind  is  not  horn  in  a  state  of  sin  and 
misery. 

The  first  term  is  <pBo^a,  corruption.  Now  it  will  hardly 
be  said  by  these  gentlemen,  that  natural  corruption  can  be 
predicated  of  '*  infants  who. are  as  pure  and  whose  nature  is 
as  upright  as  Adam's  was  when  he  was  created,"  for  Adam's 
nature  was  not  then  corrupt.  What,  then,  does  the  term 
mean?  If  we  are  permitted  to  refer  it  to  a  dead  body,  it  is 
easily  understood;  but  we  are  not  allowed  to  do  this  here, 
and  it  must  be  made  to  refer  to  a  healthy.  Jiving  infant. 
We  must,  therefore,  look  at  its  usage  elsewhere.  Aside 
from  this  passage  it  is  employed  only  eight  times  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  ver.  50,  it  plainly  has  the  same  meaning  as 
here.  It  may  mean  natural  corruption  in  Col.  ii.  22,  and 
perhaps  in  Rom.  viii.  21,  as  also  once  in  2  Pet.  ii.  12,  (where 
it  is  used  twice,)  but  in  the  other  places,  to  wit.  Gal.  vi.  8 ; 
2  Pet.  i.  4,  and  ii.  12,  19,  it  means  the  most  revolting  mora/ 
corruption.  Such,  then,  must  be  evidently  the  state  in  which 
mankind  is  born. 

The  second  term  is  aT/^/a,  from  ot/^o?,  which  itself  is  com- 
pounded of  ^>  privative,  andT/^«s  (the  very  etymology  is 
enough  to  show  its  import,  and  such  is,  in  fact,  its  meaning 
in  the  New  Testament;)  which,  besides  in  the  verse  before 
us,  is  used  but  six  times  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Rom.  i. 
26,  it  is  rendered  "riZe;"  and  in  ix.  21,  '•^dishonour;''''  in 
1  Cor.  xi.  14,  ^^ shame f''  in  our  text,  "dishonour;"  and  so, 
also,  in  2  Cor.  vi.  8,  and  in  2  Tim.  ii.  20 ;  and  in  2  Cor.  xi. 
21,  "reproach:"  in  every  instance  it  is  used  in  a  had 
moral  sense,  "at/^o?  is  used  but  four  limes,  and  in  each  of 
these,  in  strict  accordance  with  its  etymological  import ;  see 
Matt.  xiii.  57;  Mark  vi.  4;  1  Cor.  iv.  10,  and  xii.  23. 

On  the  term  da-6mU  it  is  unnecessary  to  dwell.  It  is  used 
to  mean,  weakness^  infirmity,  imbecility,  either  of  body  or 
mind,  &c.  And  on  the  phrase,  o-w^^t  4y;t<;iov,  we  have  dwelt 
already. 

Who  can  look  over  this  character  which  Socinians  have, 
by  clear  implication,  bestowed  upon  infants,  and  not  say, 
"Alas !  poor  little  creatures — this  is  worse  than  the  decre- 
tum  horribile  itself — it  is  worse  than  the  worst  forms  of 
imputation,"  &c.,  &c.  But  there  is  no  escape  from  these 
consequences,  if  "soiiJn"  here  means  what  these  men  assert. 
The  infant  when  born  must  be  a  subject  of  moral  corrup- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  221 

tion  in  its  worst  forms ;  it  must  be  "  without  honour,"  "  dis- 
honourable," "  vile,"  &c.,  &c.;  and  as  these  things  cannot, 
of  course,  be  predicated  of  it  in  consequence  of  its  actual 
transgressions,  the  poor  Socinian  and  Pelagian  have  no 
other  alternative  but  to  hold  on  to  their  bodies,  and  so  give 
up  their  definition  of  o-Tni^ce-^  or  else  admit  the  doctrine  of 
imputation,  and  that,  too,  in  a  form  (which  is  not  by  any 
means  the  true  one,  but)  in  which  they  have  ever  carica- 
tured it,  and  gloried  in  holding  it  up  to  contempt. 

2.  But  again.  I  have  already  remarked  that  this  is  the 
branch  of  the  argument  in  which  Paul  applies  his  illustra- 
tions so  as  to  answer  directly  the  question  of  the  fool.  That 
question,  ivas  concerning  the  dead — not  bi?'th  but  death. — 
How  are  the  dead  raised  up?  And  if  Paul  had  replied  to 
this  question  by  telling  the  objector  how  people  ivere  horn, 
he  would  have  acted  as  neither  Professor  Bush,  nor  any 
other  man  of  sense  would  have  done;  and  might  well  have 
apprehended  that  his  «?§oi'  would  have  been  returned  with 
interest.  And  therefore  Paul  is  not  here  speaking  of  per- 
sons being  born,  but  of  their  consignment  to  earth.*  But 
the  clause  (in  v.  42,)  which  I  have  explained  above,  clearly 
exhibits  the  connecting  link  between  the  reasoning  of  the 
apostle  here,  and  the  illustration  taken  from  the  grain. 
And  as  Piscator  remarks  "  '  Is  sown\  here,  means  the  same 
thing  as  *  is  buried.^  It  is  a  metaphor,  by  which  the  apos- 
tle changes  by  an  alternation  the  words  concerning  agricul- 
ture. For  in  verse  36,  above,  he  attributes  those  things  to 
the  seed  which  pertain  to  our  bodies:  but  here,  on  the  con- 
trary he  attributes  to  our  bodies  what  pertains  to  the  seed." 
Scholia  in  loco.  "  Serititr;  id  est,  sepelitur.  Mefaphora, 
qua  Apostolus  verba  eva\xa'|  permutavit  de  industria.  nam 
supr.  36,  semini  ea  attribuit,  quae  pertinent  ad  corpora  nos- 
tra: hic  contra  corporibus  nostris  tribuit  quse  pertinent  ad 
semen."  The  profoundly  learned  Glassius,  in  his  Philologia 
Sacra,  Lib.  V.  Tract.  I.  cap.  11,  p.  1736,  makes  the  same 
remark  almost  in  the  same  words.  And  so  far  as  mere 
authority  goes,  his  opinion  is  of  more  worth  than  that  of  all 

*  The  learned  and  acute  Cloppenburg-  remarks  with  great  force, 
"Nam  h  versu  35,  sermo  fuit  de  mortuis,  ut  non  venerit  Apostolo  in 
mentem  loqui  de  generatione  per  seminis  traducem  :  sed  loquutus  est 
de  sepultura  cadaverum,  quse  instar  seminis  terrcB  mandantur,  in 
spem  messis,  quce  futura  est  in  consummatione  sceculi ;  confer  Joh, 
xii.  24,  et  Matt.  xiii.  39."     Confut.  Socin.  Cap.  8. 

19* 


222       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

the  Socinians  who  have  ever  lived.  Grotius  also  remarks 
that  "  when  the  apostle  might  have  said,  It  is  buried,  he 
preferred  to  say  It  is  sown,  that  he  might  not  depart  from 
the  foregoing  similitude  taken  from  the  grain."  Grotius 
wrote  this  also  after  he  had  been  enlightened  by  the  Socin- 
ian  criticisms.  (See  his  letter  to  Crellius  in  Vol.  III.  of  the 
Fratres  PolonicB.)  It  is  needless  to  refer  to  other  commen- 
tators. 

On  this  principle,  therefore,  does  the  apostle  employ  the 
language  referred  to,  and  respond  directly ^  (that  is  without 
a  formal  analogy,)  to  the  objection  which  he  has  been  dis- 
cussing: q.  d.  "It  is  true,  it  is,  as  you  intimate,  sown  in 
corruption;  but  this  is  no  objection,  for  it  is  raised  again  in 
incorruption.  True,  it  is  sown  in  dishonour,  for  it  has  been 
the  instrument  of  sinning  against  God ;  but  this  dishonour 
shall  not  cleave  to  it  hereafter,  for  it  shall  be  raised  in  glory. 
I  admit  all  that  you  say  of  its  weak  and  wretched  condition ; 
but  God  will,  in  the  resurrection,  impart  to  it  new  vigor;  it 
shall  be  raised  in  power.  True  it  is  but  a  mere  animal 
body  when  sown ;  it  had  never  been  entirely  obedient  to  the 
spirit ;  and  therefore  not  fit  for  the  glory  which  is  to  be  re- 
vealed ;  but  God  shall  raise  it  a  spiritual  body ;  which  shall 
be  better  adapted  to  the  use  of  the  TrnZf/.A^  than  it  was  in  this 
world  even  to  the  4'';t«  itself."  The  argument  of  the  apos- 
tle requires,  therefore,  that  o-Tnie^u,  should  be  here  interpreted 
of  the  consignment  of  the  body  to  the  earth ;  according  to 
the  sentence  "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  re- 
turn." 

3.  But  in  addition  to  these  considerations,  I  remark  that 
Professor  Bush  is  not  able  to  adduce  a  single  instance  from 
the  New  Testament,  the  LXX.,  or  elsewhere,  of  o-Triie^a,  being 
used  simply  for  the  birth  of  a  human  being.  The  corres- 
ponding term  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  jjnN  which  is  trans- 
lated by  o-n-ii^a  in  the  LXX.  almost  always.  I  have  exam- 
ined twenty-eight  instances  of  its  use,  and  in  no  one  case 
is  it  employed  in  any  way  that  would  at  all  countenance 
such  an  idea.  The  term  is  mostly  employed  in  reference  to 
the  literal  planting  of  seed.  But  in  Judges  ix,  45,  it  refers 
to  the  scattering  of  salt  as  seed.  In  other  places  it  is  used 
figuratively  in  reference  to  the  performance  of  works  either 
good  or  evil,  which  will  at  the  great  harvestof  the  judgment, 
produce  their  appropriate  fruit.     See  Job  iv.  8;  Prov.  xxii.  8; 


ASSERTED  AKD  DEFENDED.  223 

Hosea  viii.  7;  and  also  Psalm  cxxvi.  5;  Prov.  xi.  18;  Jer.  iv-.  3. 
(Compare  also  Gal.  vi.  7,  8.) 

Its  primary  import,  therefore,  is  simply  to  scatter.  Its 
secondary,  to  sow,  or  plant  seed.  See  Hosea  ii.  23,  Jer. 
xxxi.  27.  In  Niphal  it  means  to  be  soivn,  as  a  field,  and 
also  to  be  scattered  as  seed;  and  hence  tropically  it  means 
to  be  impregnated,  Numb.  v.  28.  In  Hiphil,  to  bear  seed 
as  a  plant,  Gen.  i.  11,  and  tropically  to  conceive  seed,  as  a 
woman.  But  even  here  it  is,  by  the  writer,  most  carefully 
distinguished  from  birth  itself,  (Lev it.  xii.  2,)  for  3>n?  refers 
to  the  sowing,  ov  impregnation;  which  is  Garefully  distin- 
guished  from  n*?""  to  bring  forth.  In  all  these  -instances, 
which  serve  to  exhibit  the  Hebrew  usage,  as  well  as  that  of 
crtg/ga)  with  the  LXX.,  there  is  nothing  thstt  can  be  tortured 
even  into  an  analogy  to  the  meaning  contended  for  by  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  and  the  Pelagians,  and  Socinians.  And  the 
reason  is  plain; — birth,  so  far  from  being  a  sowings  is  the 
production  o{  the  fruit  itself :  and  to  confound  such  an  etet- 
nal  distinction  in  the  very  nature  of  things,-  would  be  to  ren- 
der language  itself  a  perfect  chaos,  and  wholly  incapable  of 
asserting  any  thing.  ■  •         •.  •     •.         .   ' 

An  appeal  to  the  New  Testament,  will;  brmg  us  to  the 
same  result.  The  term  is  used  about  forty-four  times,. in' 
addition  to  the  instances  in  the  passage  before  us  :  •  Nor  caii 
Professor  Bush  find  one  instance  which  will  at  aU  justify  hiS" 
reference  of  it  to  birth.  There  is  one  that  may,  it  is  true, 
be  thought  to  squint  that  way,  and  as,  the-  Professor  has  jiot 
regarded  the  rules  of  exegesis  very  strictly  where  his  theory 
is  concerned,  he  may  think  it  will  afford  him  some  support. 
He  is  welcome  to  all  the  assistance  which  it  will  yield  him, 
however :  but  it  will  require  "  a  length  of  rational  and  exe- 
getical  hardihood"  to  which  he  has  not  yet  attained,  to  re- 
present Paul  as  taking  an  analogy  from  the  workings  of  Satan, 
to  illustrate  the  subject  of  the  resurrection.  The  instance  is 
Matt.  xiii.  38,  39.  "  The  tares  are  the  children  of  the- evil 
one.  The  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil :"  o  <^e  tpck^^ « 
TTTsi^Ac  ctvra,  iffTiv  0  tTmCoAof.  Socinians  might' not  care  about 
violating  the  rules  of  language,  in  order  to  maintain  their 
notions;  but  Professor  Bush  will  admit,  that  ,*uTa  cannot 
possibly  relate  to  wJ  here  as  its  antecedent;  and  catl.on■ly 
reIate  to  ^'^aW /ares..  ■         •.•■'• 

The  rendering  of  <^'^«g«  propounded-  by  Professor  Btrsbi 
therefore,  has  not  only  nothing  to  support  it,  but  is  in  direct 


224  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

violation  of  all  the  laws  and  analogies  of  language ;  and  of 
course  is  undeserving  of  any  regard. 

4.  It  may  be  further  remarked  that  in  the  hctwd^  or  alter- 
nation which  Paul  here  uses,  (and  which  we  have  referred 
to  above,)  the  laws  of  language  perfectly  justify  him  in  such 
an  application  of  the  illustration  he  had  been  using,  as  to 
represent  our  bodies  as  sown,  when  deposited  in  the  earth, 
as  the  seed-corn,  to  which  he  refers,  had  been.  And  then 
he  could  have  found  instances  both  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
usage  to  justify  such  an  application  o^  a-7ru^a>^  even  if  his  illus- 
tration did  not  call  for  it.  I  have  not  searched  for  instances 
confirmatory  of  this,  but  know  that  the  representation  can 
be  fully  established,  should  any  one  call  it  into  question.  A 
single  one  just  occurs  to  mind,  found  also  in  a  book  quoted 
by  Paul  in  this  very  chapter.  Hosea  (chap.  ii.  23,)  refers 
to  Jehovah  as  saying,  "  And  I  will  sow  her  (my  spouse)  to 
myself  in  the  earth;"  rendered  by  the  LXX.,  »ati  <T7rigZ cdiTw 
ifxAvrZj  stt)  T>)f  yiic.  Now  at  the  time  referred  to,  the  spouse  of 
God  was  represented  as  dead ;  and  the  idea  is,  I  will  sow  her 
in  the  earth  as  seed,  from  which  a  new  and  more  spiritual 
church  shall  arise.  I  have  just  opened  Pareus  in  loco.,  and 
find  the  following  beautiful  annotation,  singularly  corrobora- 
tive of  the  above  representation.  "  Primus  spurius  erat 
lidsreel,  semen  Dei,  sic  dictus,  quia  Deus  populum  contu- 
macem  erat  disseminaturus  seu  dispersurus.  Nunc  convertit 
etymon  in  melius:  Ego  seminaho  earn  mihi  in  terra:  hoc 
est,  faciam  vere  semen  Dei,  quod  vox  sonat:  et  quidem 
seminaho  earn  non  in  aere,  ut  dispergatur  a  ventis,  sed  in 
terra,  ut  crescat;  et  seminaho  mihi,  ut  crescat  mihi  in  pecu- 
lium.  Promittit  igitur  novae  Ecclesise  ex  dissipatione  collec- 
tionem,  et  dilatationem  in  toto  terrarum  orbe  per  vocem 
Evangelii,  quod  vere  est  semen  Dei  immortale  ex  quo  na- 
scuntur  filii  Dei.  Matt.  xiii.  37;  1  Pet.  i.  23."  This  is  be- 
yond doubt  the  true  idea  of  the  passage. 

The  irresistible  inference  from  all  this  is,  that  *'  sown,"  in 
the  passage  before  us,  is  to  be  interpreted  of  the  deposition 
of  the  body  into  the  earth:  and  by  consequence,  that  the 
body  which  dies,  and  is  consigned  to  the  earth,  is  raised 
again  from  the  dead.  As  ^^,«a  is  confessedly  the  nominative 
of  a-Triieirrcu .\\iQ  conclusion  is  utterly  unavoidable:  "/if,  (the 
<rZfAtt,)  is  sown  (consigned  to  the  earth,)  in  corruption;  it  is 
raised  in  incorruption:  it  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  is  raised 
in  glory:  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power:  it 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  225 

is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  It 
Cannot  be  wondered  that  the  Socinians  and  Pelagians  with 
Professor  Bush  should  labour  hard  to  destroy  <rrtii^a)  in'  order 
to  get  rid  of  this  overwhelming  conclusion. 

VII.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  the  Professor  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood 
cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God;  neither  doth  corruptio|i 
inherit  incorruption.  Behold  I  show  you  a  mystery:  We 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump;  for.  the  trum- 
pet shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible^ 
and  we  shall  be  changed.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on 
incorruption,  and  this  mortal. must  put  on  iJEnmortaUty." 
1  Cor.  XV.  50-53.  ;  .•:::. '  ..,  ..  ■  •..    \;. 

With  this  passage  the  quotations  made  by  Professor  Bush 
from  1  Cor.  xv.,  terminate t  and  he  has  terminated  theni,  so 
as  to  omit  the  passage  which  fixes  the  order  of.  the  'evt^^t 
of  which  Paul  is  speaking,  and  which  shows  beyond  ibe 
power  of  denial  that  the  idea  of  the  resurrection- taking  place 
at  death  is  false.  Is  it  fair  for  Professor  Bush  thus  to  push  out 
of  sight  those  passages  which  cannot  be  made,  by  any.  **  twisr 
tification"  to  utter  a  dubious  testimony?  Certain  1  am,  that 
he  would  utter  the  most  unmeasured  condemnation  of  others 
who  should  be  guilty  of  such  a  course.  The  passage  is  the 
following:  "So,  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on 
incorruption,  and  this  morlal  shall  have  put  on  immortality, 
THEN  SHALL  BE  BROUGHT  TO  PASS  the  Saying  that  is  written, 
Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  O  Death!  where  is  thy 
Sting]  O  grave!  where  is  thy  victory?"  vers.  54,  55.  Pro- 
fessor Bush  had  sense  enough  to  see  that  this  announcement 
settled  the  point  as  to  the  simultaneousness  of  the  resurrec- 
tion spoken  of  in  this  chapter,  and  that  the  wit  of  man '.was 
inadequate  to  construe  the  passage  differently  and  yet  make 
sense  of  it,  and  hence  he  was  prudent  enough  to  say  nothing 
about  it.     But  let  us  attend  to  the  argument  of  the  apostle. 

As  an  inference  from  all  his  preceding  discussion,  Paul 
here  announces  the  fact,  that  "  flesh  and  blood  cannot"  in- 
herit the  kingdom  of  God."  The  phrase,  "flesh  and  blood," 
refers  to  our  present  animal  body,  which  cannot  be  adapted 
to  the  uses  of  the  spirit  until  thoroughly  changed.  This  is 
rendered  plain  by  considering  the  passage  which  immedi- 
ately precedes  this,  verse.  "The  nature  we  derive  from 
Adam  is  animal,  and  earthly;  but  Christ,  the  last  Adam, 


226       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

is  a  quickening  spirit;  and  as  we  have  borne  the  image 
of  the  earthly,  so  must  we  bear  the  image  of  the  hea- 
venly: and  hence  a  mere  animal,  and  earthly  body,  (flesh 
and  blood,)  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom;  but  must  be  changed 
into  a  body  adapted  to  the  spirit,  as  Christ's  was,  when 
he  arose  from  the  grave."  (vers.  45-50.)  Such  seems  to 
be  the  argument  of  the  apostle;  after  which,  he  imme- 
diately proceeds  to  explain,  or  show  the  mystery,  (not  pre- 
viously clearly  understood  nor  apprehended,)  that  this  change 
should  pass  upon  all  the  children  of  the  second  Adam. 

Professor  Bush,  in  remarking  upon  this  passage,  falls 
into  the  common  error  of  supposing  that  those  only  who 
are  alive  when  Christ  comes  shall  be  changed.*  But  Paul 
gives  no  countenance  to  this  idea ;  but  plainly  teaches  the 
reverse.  "  We  shall  not  all  die,  it  is  true,"  says  he,  "  but 
whether  we  die  or  are  alive  at  that  time  we  shall  all  be 
changed  (^dvn;  cTe  a\Kuymro/uiS Ay)  and  therefore,  neither  in  the 
case  of  those  who  die  before  that  time,  nor  in  the  case  of 
those  who  are  alive,  shall  flesh  and  blood  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God."  This  is  the  obvious  course  of  his  argu- 
ment; and  to  prevent,  as  we  might  suppose,  the  very  mis- 
take above  referred  to,  he  repeats  in  the  next  verses   the 

*  Grotius  and  others  dissent  from  the  received  reading  of  this  text, 
because  of  the  poor  unsupported  reading  of  ol  Travn;  /uh  ou  x.oi/A.nB»(ro~ 
fjiSct^  oh  TrdvTii  (Tfi,  &c.  But  the  Text.  Rec.  has  the  support  of  the 
great  body  of  the  best  MSS.,  and  of  the  Codices  used  by  Acacius, 
Jerome,  Pelagius,  CEcumenius,  Valla,  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
doret,  Apollinarius,  Theodotus,  Theophylact,  «S6C.,  &c.,  not  to  name 
the  Arabic,  Syriac,  Coptic,  and  some  ancient  Latin  versions  :  while 
the  MSS.  which  dissent  from  it  all  vary.  So  also  do  the  Latin  ver- 
sions,  which  have  a  different  reading.  One  has  it,  "  We  shall  all 
indeed  die,  but  we  shall  not  all  be  changed  ;"  another,  '<  We  shall  all 
indeed  arise,  but  we  shall  not  all  be  changed,"  &lc.;  another  has  it, 
"  We  shall  not  indeed  all  die,  but  we  shall  ail  be  changed,"  which  is 
in  accordance  with  the  approved  reading.  On  the  alleged  inconsist- 
ency of  this  reading  with  Heb.  ix.  27,  Stapleton,  a  bigoted  Papist, 
charges  the  Greek  text  with  falsehood  and  impiety,  that  so  he  may 
exalt  his  darling  Vulgate.  The  supposed  inconsistency  of  these  two 
texts,  produced  efforts  to  reconcile  them,  whence  these  variations 
arose;  which,  according  to  Griesbach's  excellent  rule,  prove  the 
genuineness  of  the  common  reading.  Even  Crellius  remarks  on  the 
subject,  that  "  It  is  said  concerning  all  the  faithful,  that  they  should 
be  changed  in  a  moment;  and,  therefore,  those  also  are  included 
who  arise."  "  De  omnibus  enim  fidelibus  dictum  erat  cos  in  nio- 
mento  mutatum  iri,  atque  adeo  etiam  eos  qui  resurgunt."  Com.  in 
loco,  p.  366.    The  context,  also,  seems  clearly  to  require  this  reading. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  227 

assurance  that  "  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and 
we  (i.  e.  whether  we  are  then  alive,  or  had  previously  died,) 
shall  be  changed :"  and  he  states  as  an  additional  reason 
why  this  change  should  be  universal,  that  "  this  corruptible 
must  put  on  incorruption,"  &c.,  ^ti  >"§  ^3  pfia^Tcv  rovro,  &c. 
Because  if  it  did  not  put  on  incorruption  and  immortality, 
then  flesh  and  blood  must  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 

After  a  passing  remark  respecting  the  phrase  "  flesh  and 
blood,"  and  an  attempt  to  show  (without  investigating  the 
passage)  that  the  change  spoken  of  here,  is  predicated  only 
of  those  who  shall  then  be  alive,  the  Professor  proceeds  as 
follows:  "But  we  here  encounter  a  great  difficulty  in  view 
of  our  previous  position,  that  the  true  resurrection  takes 
place  at  the  death  of  every  individual  believer,  when  he 
emerges  from  a  material  into  a  spiritual  body.  Is  it  not 
clearly  implied,  not  to  say  exprcssly  asserted,  in  this  pas- 
sage, that  the  resurrection  of  all  the  righteous  is  simulta- 
neous, and  that  this  event  is  still  future,  to  occur  at  the  epoch 
of  the  second  advent,  and  in  conjunction  with  the  translation 
of  the  living  saints?" 

"  We  can  have  no  object  in  denying  or  disguising  the  fact, 
(continues  he,)  that  these  words  have  very  much  the  air  of 
directly  contravening  the  general  tenor  of  our  interpretation 
of  the  preceding  portions  of  this  chapter.  Still,  if  our  pre- 
vious train  of  reasoning  be  sound,  [a  most  important  proviso, 
truly,] — if  our  conclusions  be  fairly  sustained  by  the  evi- 
dence adduced — it  is  certain  that  these  words  rightly  i/n- 
derstood  cannot  be  in  conflict  with  them.  Every  part  of  the 
word  of  God  must  be  in  harmony  with  every  other  part, 
though  apparent  discrepancies  may  exist,  to  the  clear  con- 
ciliation of  which  we  may  not  always  be  competent.  In  the 
present  case,  we  are  so  strongly  persuaded  of  the  truth  of 
our  previous  conclusions,  founded  both  upon  the  intrinsic 
nature  of  the  subject  itself,  and  upon  the  just  interpretation 
of  language,  that  our  confidence  in  them  is  no  wise  shaken 
by  the  literal  reading  of  a  passage,  which  seems  at  first  view 
to  enforce  entirely  another  theory,  (!)  It  remains,  therefore, 
to  inquire  in  what  manner  this  declaration  of  the  apostle,  is 
to  be  made  consistent  with  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  gene- 
ral teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  the 
resurrection,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  same  with  the  future  life  of 
the  righteous"  pp.  190,  191. 

From  this  train  of  remark  the  reader  will  at  once  see  that 


228       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

the  "  argument  from  reason,"  and  the  "  principle  of  accom- 
modation," are  both  to  be  brought  in  to  the  aid  of  the  Profes- 
sor in  his  difficulty :  and  hence  is  apparent,  the  importance 
of  the  thorough  examination  to  which  we  have  subjected 
them  in  the  formor  part  of  our  work.  No  Christian  doubts 
that  the  Bible,  when  "  rightly  understood,"  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  itself;  but  the  question  here  is  not  as  to  this 
point,  but  whether  Professor  Bush's  theory  is  consistent  with 
the  Bible  1  and  this  he  himself  will  admit,  is  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent question.  In  passing,  I  would  request  the  reader  to 
notice  also,  the  distinct  announcement  in  the  closing  para- 
graph of  this  quotation,  that  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection,  is  the  same  with  the  future  life  of  the  righ- 
teous :  that  is,  in  other  words,  that  so  far  as  the  righteous 
are  concerned,  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  immortality,  are 
one  and  the  same  thing.  It  would  be  out  of  place  to  discuss 
this  subject  here ;  yet  we  cannot  but  express  our  regret,  that, 
as  the  Professor  has  told  us  that  the  wicked  are  not  partakers 
of  the  resurrection,  and  yet  live  hereafter  "  in  spiritual  tene- 
ments," he  had  not  also  told  us  whence  their  spiritual  tene- 
ments were  derived,  and  wherein  they  differed  from  those  of 
the  righteous.  Are  they  not  immortal,  and  incorruptible, 
&c.  &c.  ? 

But  to  return.  The  Professor  has,  with  tolerable  fair- 
ness, stated  the  difficulty,  presented  by  this  text,  to  the  adop- 
tion of  his  theory :  let  us  therefore  follow  him  in  order  to 
ascertain  how  he  obviates  it.  It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing 
extract  that  it  has  in  nowise  daunted  him.  So  far,  how- 
ever, as  the  remarks  are  concerned,  respecting  his  "  previous 
train  of  reasoning,"  and  his  "  conclusions  founded  both  upon 
the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  subject  itself,  and  upon  the  just 
interpretation  of  language,"  he  can  obtain  no  assistance  in 
this  case:  for  we  have  demonstrated  that  his  previous  train 
of  reasoning  is  not  sound,  and  that  his  conclusions,  "  founded 
upon  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  subject,"  are  false,  and  his 
rules  for  V  the  just  interpretation  of  language,"  utterly  falla- 
cious; and  finally,  that  he  has  totally  misapprehended  the 
apostle's  argument  throughout  the  chapter,  and  has  con- 
stantly put  upon  his  language  a  meaning  not  only  wholly 
arbitrary,  but  one  which  it  cannot  be  made  to  bear.  If, 
therefore,  the  Professor  would  remove  the  obstacle  which 
this  passage  puts  in  his  way,  it  must  be  "by  a  purely  inde- 
pendent process." 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  229 

He  commences  his  effort  with  some  observations  concern- 
ing the  expectations  which  the  ancient  Jews  entertained 
respecting  the  conning  of  their  Messiah;  and  he  remarks 
that  they  confounded  his  second  coming,  with  his  first,  by 
overlooking  his  previous  ordained  humiliation.  And  after 
remarking  that  our  Lord  announced  the  fulfilments  of  those 
prophecies  (on  which  they  had  based  their  expectations,)  as 
still  future,  he  says,  "  And  let  it  here  be  remarked,  that  while 
the  predictions  of  our  Lord  himself  on  this  subject  were  in 
fact  but  the  application  of  numerous  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cies to  their  true-meant  design,  these  predictions,  thus  drawn 
from  the  earlier  prophets,  were  the  foundation  of  all  the 
knowledge  which  the  apostles  possessed  respecting  the 
Lord's  second  coming.'^  And  to  show  that  he  does  not 
mean  this  to  be  understood  of  the  apostles  while  in  their 
comparatively  blind  and  unbelieving  state  during  our  Lord's 
ministry,  he  continues  thus:  *' In  other  words,  their  own 
announcements  on  the  subject  were  not  strictly  original^  or 
uttered  de  novo,  but  were  the  echo  of  the  Saviour's  oracles, 
and  of  those  of  the  Old  Testament  on  which  they  were 
founded."  And  then  after  asserting  the  palpable  misrepre- 
sentation that  1  Thess.  iv.  15-17,  "is  but  a  paraphrase"  of 
Matt.  xxiv.  29-34,  (by  which  means  he  hopes  to  get  rid  of 
the  plain  testimony  of  Paul  in  that  passage,  that  he  spoke, 
what  is  therein  recorded,  by  an  express  and  direct  revela- 
lion  from  "  the  Lord,")  he  adds,  *'  Consequently,  if  the  true 
meaning  of  the  symbolic  language  in  which  our  Lord  deli- 
vered his  predictions  was  not  made  known  to  the  apostles, 
of  which  their  writings  afford  no  evidence ,  they  would 
naturally  interpret  them  according  to  the  letter,  and  suppose 
a  speedy  fulfilment."  p.  191-193. 

These  references  to  the  old  Jewish  notions,  are  of  course 
to  prepare  the  mind  of  the  reader  for  the  adoption  of  the 
principle  that  the  apostles  were  never  freed  from  their  Jew- 
ish prejudices,  which,  consequently,  must  more  or  less  have 
influenced  their  teachings.  Then  of  course  follows  the  infe- 
rence hinted  at  above  in  no  ambiguous  language,  that  the 
apostles  were  not  inspired  (in  the  sense  in  which  the  old  pro- 
phets were)  to  communicate  a  revelation  directly  from  hea- 
ven, but  merely  delivered  their  own  random  views,  made  up 
of  the  prejudices  of  a  Jewish  education,  and  of  their  own 
mere  opinions  of  what  Christ  meant  in  his  teachings;  and, 
therefore,  as  they  were  mere  fallible  men,  they  could  not 

20 


230       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

help  being  mistaken,  at  least  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrec- 
tion: so  much  so  that  reason  must  be  called  in  to  set  the 
matter  right,  and  Professor  Bush  as  the  champion  of  reason 
must  come  forward,' and  modify  the  views  of  the  church  on 
this  subject  and  correct  the  errors  under  which  it  has  been 
labouring  ever  since  it  entertained  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection. If  this  be  not  the  clear  import  of  the  foregoing 
declarations,  let  the  reader  himself  endeavour  to  explain 
them,  in  consistency  with  their  connexion,  so  as  to  arrive  at 
a  different  conclusion :  for  I  frankly  confess  it  transcends  my 
powers  to  do  so.     But  let  us  follow  our  author  further.* 

After  remarking  that  the  epistles  were  written  in  the  in- 
terval between  the  crucifixion  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  that  the  apostles  undoubtedly  cherished  the  expec- 
tation that  they  should  live  until  the  day  of  judgment,  he 
proceeds  to  show  "  from  two  very  opposite  sources,"  that 
such  was  truly  their  belief  The  first  of  these  authorities  is 
Edward  Gibbon,  Esq.;  and  from  the  notorious ^i^een^ A  chap- 
ter (every  section  of  which  contains  some  egregious  misre- 
presentation of  the  primitive  church)  of  his  "  Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,''''  he  makes  a  long  extract, 
charging  Christ  and  the  apostles  with  having  predicted  that 
the  day  of  doom  would  occur  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
generation  in  which  they  lived.  Professor  Bush  is  heartily 
welcome  to  the  full  support  of  this  high  authority.  His  other 
"  source''''  is  Dr.  Watts,  from  whose  preliminary  essay  to  his 
"  World  to  Come,^^  he  extracts  several  paragraphs  intended 

*  In  this  connexion  (p.  192,)  the  Professor  also  repeats  a  remark 
which  he  had  made  in  the  Preface,  page  ix.,  to  the  effect  that  Christ 
promised  that  his  Second  Advent  should  virtually  take  place  while 
some  of  the  generation  then  on  the  stage  of  action  should  be  living. 
The  text  he  refers  to  is  Matt.  xvi.  28.  But  a  reference  to  the  parallel 
passages  will  at  once  show  that  the  coming  here,  is  the  coming  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  with  potoer,  Mark  ix.  1,  or  its  signal  manifestation, 
Luke  ix.  27,  which  Professor  Bush  will  not  deny,  took  place  in  the 
apostle's  time.  The  Professor  is  a  strenuous  advocate  for  "a  double 
sense^'  of  prophecy,  (.see  his  ^^  Hierophant"  pp.  73,  97,  121, 145,  169, 
and  193,)  and  if  he  will  but  follow  each  of  the  evangelists  referred 
to,  only  a  few  verses  afler  their  record  of  these  words  of  Christ,  he 
will  find  reason  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  here  refers  to  a  visible 
earnest  and  specimen  of  his  coming  personally:  which  Peter,  who  was 
one  of  the  three  witnesses  of  his  transfiguration,  calls  the  power  and 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  see  2  Pet.  i.  16-18.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  occasion  whatever  that  "  this  declaration  should  be  repealed.'* 
See  Preface,  page  ix. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  231 

to  show  that  "  the  Christians  of  the  first  age  did  generally 
expect  the  second  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment,  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  in  that  very  age  in  which  it  was 
foretold:"  and  that  "  from  the  words  of  Christ  in  John  xxi. 
22,  it  is  probable  that  the  apostles  themselves  at  firsts  as 
well  as  other  Christians,  might  derive  this  apprehension  of 
his  speedy  coming."  And  from  all  these  things  the  Profes- 
sor concludes  that  the  apostles  were  mistaken  as  to  the  true 
time  of  Christ's  second  advent. 

In  order  that  we  may  not  lose  our  way,  let  us  here  pause 
a  moment  and  consider  where  we  are.  We  started  on  our 
course  with  the  declaration  of  Paul  in  our  eye,  that  the 
resurrection  of  which  he  treats  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  will  transpire 
at  the  second  coming  of  Christ ;  but  he  says  nothing  as  to 
the  point  of  time  when  that  advent  will  occur.  Professor 
Bush  was  in  our  company  when  we  started,  and  he  set  out 
with  the  avowed  intention  of  showing  us  the  path  to  his 
theory  without  going  out  of  the  way  of  this  explicit  declara- 
tion of  the  apostle.  Our  author  admits  that  the  way,  "  at 
first  view,"  seems  to  be  rather  crooked,  and  inclining  in  an 
opposite  direction;  but  he  attributes  this  to  the  distance  from 
which  our  observation  has  been  taken — a  nearer  view,  will, 
he  thinks,  show  it  to  be  "  as  straight  as  a  rule  can  make  it." 
It  is  true,  that  thus  far  we  have  not  approached  very  near  to 
it,  but  we  may  nevertheless  here  pause  a  moment  to  survey 
the  ground  already  traversed.     And 

1.  Suppose  then  we  grant  that  the  apostles  were  abso- 
lutely ignorant  of  the  time  when  the  second  advent  should 
occur,  and  really  thought  it  would  take  place  in  their  life- 
time, (which  latter  sentiment,  by  the  way,  we  hold  to  be 
utterly  false,)  and  what  follows? — that  they  were  mistaken 
about  every  thing?  If  not,  then  pray  how  does  it  follow 
because  they  did  not  know  precisely  when  the  second  advent 
would  take  place  that  therefore  they  did  not  know  that  the 
resurrection  would  be  simultaneous?  for  this  is  the  point 
now  before  us.  Suppose  it  should  be  said  of  Professor  Bush, 
that  hecavse  he  does  not  know  ^he  day  of  Christ's  final 
and  glorious  manifestation,  that  therefore  he  does  not  know 
whether  angels  will  attend  on  him  then,  and  the  whole  assem- 
bly of  the  redeemed?  Would  not  our  author  look  with  con- 
tempt and  pity  upon  the  man  who  seriously  deduced  such 
an  inference  from  such  premises!  And  can  he  not  see  that 
the  inference  (even  on  his  assumed  principles,)  is  just  as 


232       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

legitimate  in  one  case  as  in  the  other?  Even  should  we 
grant,  therefore,  all  that  he  claims  on  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Gibbon  and  Dr.  Watts,  it  would  avail  him  absolutely  nothing 
so  far  as  the  true  issue  is  concerned.  The  point  is  not,  v^hen 
will  the  second  advent  occur?  but  simply,  tchat  will  then 
take  place?     But 

2.  The  apostles  have  no  where  asserted  that  Christ  would 
come  in  their  day,  or  that  they  believed  he  would.  No 
passage  intimating  this  can  be  produced.  John  xxi.  22,  does 
not  imply  in  fact  any  thing  like  it;  but  merely  that  the 
apostles,  in  their  state  of  comparative  ignorance  at  the  time 
that  Christ  spoke  these  words,  drew  the  inference  referred 
to.  From  their  remarks  on  this  subject,  others  of  "  the 
brethren"  obtained  the  same  view,  till  the  "  saying  went 
abroad,"  not  that  Christ  would  come  in  that  generation,  hvt 
that  John  would  not  die — which  looks  like  anything  else 
rather  than  that  the  advent  would  take  place  in  the  lifetime 
of  that  generation.  But  admitting  that  such  was  the  inference 
which  they  drew  from  it,  it  only  proves  that  they  were  then 
mistaken,  and  not  that  they  continued  in  the  error.  And 
John's  recording  it  after  all  the  other  apostles  were  dead, 
will  hardly  be  thought  to  have  been  designed  to  show  them 
that  they  were  wrong.  But  we  shall  continue  our  remarks 
on  this  topic,  after  having  heard  Professor  Bush  somewhat 
further. 

After  the  quotation  from  Dr.  Watts,  he  proceeds  thus: 
*'  But  to  all  this  we  are  aware  it  may  be  objected,  that  it 
impugns  the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings. If  they  laboured  under  a  mistake  on  this  point,  how 
can  they  be  said  to  have  been  prompted  by  the  unerring 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  And  if  they  have  mistaken 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  se- 
cond advent,  why  may  they  not  have  mistaken  it  on  other 
doctrines,  and  thus  the  church  be  lefl;  without  an  infallible 
standard  of  truth?"  pp.  195,  196. 

The  reader  will  note  that  the  point  previously  discussed 
by  Professor  Bush  was  whether  the  apostles  had  mistaken 
the  time  of  the  second  advent ;  but  here,  he  dexterously  sub- 
stitutes ^'- doctrine,^''  and  keeps  up  this  substitution  through 
the  remainder  of  the  discussion:  so  that  the  reader  might  be 
led  to  infer  that  the  apostles  had  really  announced  nothing 
certain  respecting  that  doctrine.  But  how  does  he  meet  this 
objection?     Here  are  his  words:  "To  this  objection  thus 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  233 

urged,  we  reply,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  does  not  present 
a  fair  issue.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  apostles  have 
erroneously  represented  any  doctrine  which  they  were  in- 
spired to  deliver,  but  how  far  their  inspiration  extended ;" 
and  he  proceeds  to  say  that  the  apostles  "  were  made  the 
subjects,  or  rather  the  organs  of  special  revelations — reve- 
lations, lying  entirely  without  the  compass  of  their  own  un- 
assisted faculties;"  and  that  so  far  as  these  "revelations, 
were  concerned,  the  apostles  must  of  course  be  considered 
as  having  spoken  with  absolute  inerrancy:"  that  "  acting 
as  the  organs  of  certain  divine  communications,  it  would  be 
natural  that  they  should  exercise  their  thoughts  upon  the 
themes  that  thus  expressed  themselves  through  them.  But 
the  judgments  which  they  personally  formed  on  these  dis- 
closures, being  distinct  from  the  truths  themselves,  may  not 
have  been  free  from  error,  simply  for  the  reason,  that  they 
did  not  come  really  within  the  scope  of  their  inspiration. 
The  mind  of  the  Spirit  is  one  thing,  and  their  personal  view 
of  its  meaning  is  another;  and  it  is  very  conceivable  that 
we,  from  having  more  ample  data,  may  be  better  able 

TO    JUDGE    OF    THIS    MEANING    THAN   THEY    WERE."      "  We 

contend  therefore,  that  it  does  not  truly  detract  from  Paul's 
claims  to  inspiration  that  he  should  not  have  understood 
what  was  not  revealed,  or  that  he  should  have  so  stated 
what  was  revealed  as  to  evince  that  he  had  in  some  res- 
pects mistaken  its  true  purport — that  he  should  have  put 
upon  it  a  sense  which  we  now  know  to  be  erroneous^  And 
"  in  this  view"  he  professes  to  be  "  happy  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  remarks  on  the  very 
passage  we  are  now  considering."  pp.  196-198.  I  am 
neither  the  advocate  of  nor  apologist  for  the  peculiar  senti- 
ments attributed  to  Mr.  Barnes;  but  should  be  exceedingly 
sorry  to  think  that  he  had  ever  uttered  any  thing  that  would 
sanction  this  glaring  neology.  The  passage  quoted  from 
him  in  this  connexion,  by  Professor  Bush,  contains  not  the 
most  distant  endorsement  of  these  principles,  if  we  except  a 
little  careless  verbiage  at  the  conclusion,  which  ingenuity 
might,  perhaps,  compel  to  speak  a  language  which  it  never 
was  intended  to  utter.  But  in  this  very  extract  Mr.  Barnes 
repeatedly  declares,  that,  though  the  apostles  do  not  profess 
to  state  the  precise  time  in  which  the  predicted  events  will 
occur,  they  yet  ^^  state  truly  and  exactly  the  order^^  of  those 
events  :  a  sentiment  which  the  reader  will  agree  with  me  in 
20* 


234       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODT 

thinking,  is  any  thing  else  than  an  endorsement  of  Professor 
liush's  views. 

Such,  therefore,  is  the  Professor's ^rs^  reply  to  the  fore- 
going objection.  The  second  we  will  attend  to  in  its  order 
hereafter. 

1  quote  these  revolting  sentiments  from  our  author,  not  so 
much  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  them,  (for  their  nature 
and  tendency  has  been  sufficiently  exposed  in  a  former 
chapter,)  as  to  evince  by  what  means  he  is  determined  to 
retain  his  theory  and  rid  himself  of  the  opposing  testimony 
of  the  word  of  God.  Nevertheless  a  few  remarks  on  the 
subject  in  passing,  will  not  be  deemed  out  of  place. 

The  obvious  design  of  these  remarks  of  Professor  Bush, 
is  not  to  prepare  the  way  for  explaining  the  language  of 
the  apostle,  so  as  to  make  it  accord  with  the  theory  in  ques- 
tion, but  to  get  rid  of  its  testimony  altogether.  Hence  it  is 
first  maintained  that  Paul  was  ignorant  not  only  of  the  time 
when  the  second  advent  should  take  place,  (which  no  one 
known  to  me  disputes,)  but  that  he  had  mistaken  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit  respecting  the  doctrine  itself,  and  that  in  his 
writings  and  preaching,  he  had  communicated  his  mistakes 
to  others:  and  that  we,  in  this  age,  may  be  better  able  to 
judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit  than  were  the  apostles 
themselves.  Semler  himself  would  not  have  dared  to  give 
utterance  to  sentiments  like  these;  and  yet  they  must  be  thus 
published  to  the  American  churches  as  unquestioned  princi- 
ples of  hermeneutics ! 

But  it  is  apparent  at  a  glance  that  on  these  principles  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  is  involved  in  the  utmost  un- 
certainty. I  could  safely  challenge  any  man  to  specify  a 
single  doctrine  therein  announced,  which  I  could  not  explain 
entirely  away  without  in  the  least  deviating  from  the  course 
pursued  by  Professor  Bush  with  respect  to  the  passage  be- 
fore us.  And  if  the  apostles  were  so  ignorant  and  mistaken, 
that  we  can  now  better  understand  even  the  revelations  which 
they  were  commissioned  to  announce  than  they  could  them- 
selves, the  great  wonder  is  that  Professor  Bush  should  have 
thought  it  worth  while  at  all  to  attempt  a  reconciliation  be- 
tween their  statements  and  his  theory.  Why  not  honestly 
stand  forth,  and,  by  virtue  of  his  claim  to  understand  the 
revelation  of  God  better  than  the  apostles  did,  at  once  set 
aside  their  authority?     This  would  have  been  open  and  fair; 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  235 

and  precisely  what  the  public  have  a  right  to  expect  from 
the  man  who  will  advocate  these  abominable  principles. 

With  respect  to  the  subject,  or  proposition  upon  which 
these  inferences  depend,  1  have  offered  a  remark  or  two 
upon  it  a  few  pages  back,  with  the  intention  to  resume  the 
consideration  of  it  here.  The  sum  total  of  the  evidence  that 
our  author  has  adduced,  on  which  to  charge  the  apostles 
with  mistake  and  error  in  their  teachings,  is  simply  and 
merely  this; — they  knew  not  the  day  nor  the  hour  of  Christ's 
advent.  Then  assuming  that  they  professed  to  know  it, 
and  really  announced  that  it  would  take  place  during  the 
lifetime  of  that  generation,  he  concludes  that,  as  they  were 
mistaken  on  this  point,  they  had  totally  misunderstood  the 
doctrine  of  the  second  advent,  and  consequently,  their  testi- 
mony on  that  subject  can  establish  nothing  against  the  truth 
of  his  theory.  This  is  his  argument  in  its  logical  depend- 
ence, presented  in  a  nutshell.     Now  let  us  look  at  it. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  offered  on  this  subject  al- 
ready, I  remark  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  which 
goes  to  prove  either  that  the  apostles  announced  that  the 
second  advent  would  occur  in  their  day,  or  even  entertained 
the  opinion  that  it  would.  Grotius,  who  I  think  was  the 
father  of  this  notion,  predicates  it  upon  the  futile  remark, 
(like  Professor  Bush,)  that  *'  the  prophets  and  apostles  had 
not  a  revelation  concerning  every  thing:"  "  Sicul  Prophetae, 
ita  et  Apostoli  non  de  omnibus  habuere  revelationem."  See 
Append,  ad  lib.  de  Antichristo,  0pp.  IV.  p.  475.*  Well, 
suppose  they  had  not,  and  what  follows?  Why  that  there- 
fore they  thought  the  coming  of  Christ  would  take  place  in 
their  own  day,  and,  consequently y  were  mistaken.  This  is 
truly  drawing  an  inference  with  "  a  cart  rope."  For  absurd- 
ity it  is  equal  to  the  remark  of  Grotius  on  the  same  page, 
where,  commenting  on  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  and  1  Thess.  iv.  he  says  that  "  he  divides  those  who  are 
raised  from  the  dead,  into  two  classes,  to  wit,  those  who 
should  die  before  the  resurrection,  and  those  Yiho  should  be 
alive  at  the  time  when  it  occurred." 

•  If  any  one  wishes  to  pursue  this  subject,  and  see  Grotius  and 
Locke  hjindsomely  "used  up"  in  relation  to  it,  let  him  turn  to  Mac, 
knight's  Preface  to  the  2d  epist.  to  the  Thessalonians.  It  is  too  long 
to  extract  and  too  excellent  to  abridge.  See  also  Pres.  Edward's 
"  Miscellaneous  Observations,'"  Part  I.  Chap.  II.  Works  VII.  221. 


236       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

But  says  Professor  Bush,  "  Do  not  some  of  their  ex- 
pressions clearly  intimate  that  the  apostles  believed  it?" 
No,  not  one  !  And  suppose  they  have-  that  appearance  to 
Professor  Bush,  does  this  prove  that  such  was  the  meaning 
of  the  apostles?  and  are  we  hence  to  infer  that  they  were  in 
error,  and  knew  nothing  about  the  order  of  events  at  the 
second  advent,  &c.  &c.?  The  assertors  of  this  sentiment 
can  find  nothing  in  all  the  epistles  touching  this  point,  which 
for  plainness  and  explicitness  can  be  compared  with  the  de- 
clarations of  Christ.  See  Matt.  xxiv.  34;  Rev.  xxii.  10,  12, 
&c.  And  if  such  declarations  when  made  by  the  apostles, 
prove  that  they  were  in  error,  the  same  reasoning  will  prove 
Christ  to  have  been  in  error.  If  the  inference  follows  not  in 
one  case  neither  does  it  in  the  other.  But  I  have  detained 
the  reader  on  this  point  long  enough,  and  shall  dismiss  the 
subject  with  one  or  two  brief  remarks. 

And  first;  I  am  willing  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  to 
admit  with  Dr.  Watts,  that  the  primitive  Christians  gene- 
rally may  have  expected  the  second  coming  of  Christ  in 
their  time :  but  let  it  be  remembered  that  *'  the  primitive 
Christians  generally^^  were  not  inspired  to  teach  God's 
truth  as  the  apostles  were.  They  were  for  the  most  part 
uninspired  Jews,  and  had  always  believed  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple  and  the  end  of  the  world  or  day  of  judg- 
ment should  be  synchronical.  They  inferred,  therefore, 
the  speedy  coming  of  this  day,  from  what  Christ  had  said 
respecting  the  approaching  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
subversion  of  the  Jewish  polity.  And  secondly,  the  apostles 
were  so  far  from  teaching  that  the  second  advent  would 
occur  in  their  day,  that  they  esteemed  the  opinion  to  be  an 
error  of  such  magnitude  that  they  formally  wrote  to  correct 
it.  It  was  for  this  purpose  emphatically  that  Paul  wrote  his 
second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  Such  was  the  uniform 
belief  of  the  ancient  church.  And  even  the  clause  in  1  Thes. 
iv.  15,  "  We  who  are  alive,"  (from  which  Mr.  Locke  and 
others  have  discovered  that  Paul  expected  to  live  till  the  time 
of  the  resurrection,)  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  (Ecumenius, 
Theophylact  and  others  assert,  was  not  intended  by  the 
apostle  to  mean  that  he  expected  to  live  till  then,  but  "  was 
spoken  for  those  Christians  who  should  be  alive  at  that  time." 
Hence  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  he  declares  his  own  expectation  of  a 
resurrection.  "  He  that  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise 
up  us  also  by  Jesus,"  &c.,*  and  hence  he  laboured  that  he 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  237 

might  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Phil.  iii.  11. 
See  also  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  2.  Even  Crellius  (in  1  Cor.  xv.  52,) 
remarks  that  Paul  had  no  such  hope,  and  announced  by 
many  declarations  that  he  did  not  expect  it.  *'  Opponit  au- 
tem  apostolus  vocem,  nos,  mortuis,  non  quod  Paulus  omnino 
speraverit,  se  quoque  ipsum  una  cum  Corinthiis,  ad  quos 
scribebat,  et  quos  vocula  isla  compleclebatur,  usque  ad  ad- 
ventum  Christ!  fore  superslitem,  imo  potius  ex  multis  ejus 
apostoli  dictis  satis  liquet,  eum  id  neqvaquam  sperasse." 

The  Professor's  second  reply  to  the  foregoing  objection  is 
as  follows  :  "  Our  Lord's  second  coming,  and  its  associated 
events  are  described  in  highly  symbolic  and  prophetic  terms, 
taken  mostly  from  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  pro- 
phets, and  so  framed  as  to  be  intrinsically  obscure  and  capa- 
ble of  being  erroneously  apprehended.  Nor  does  it  appear 
that  Christ  himself  distinctly  laid  open  to  his  disciples  the 
nature  of  that  event.  Consequently,  as  the  predictions  re- 
specting the  first  coming  were  so  worded  as  to  be  liable  to 
misunderstanding  before  he  came,  even  by  the  very  pro- 
phets themselves  who  recorded  them,  so  the  idea  seems  en- 
tirely reasonable,  that  the  predictions  respecting  his  second 
coming  may  not  have  been  perfectly  understood  in  all  re- 
spects even  by  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  Christians." 
pp.  198,  199.  But  to  this  I  reply,  frst,  that  to  predicate  the 
issue  upon  the  question,  whether  "  Christ  himself  distinctly 
laid  open  to  his  disciples  the  nature"  of  his  second  advent, 
is  to  present  a  false  issue.  The  point  is  not,  whether  Christ 
himself  instructed  them  on  this  subject,  but  whether  what 
they  have  offered  in  relation  to  it  was  by  the  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  we  djirm,  and  Professor  Bush  de- 
nies. Secondly,  as  to  "  highly  symbolic  and  prophetic" 
terms,  there  are  none  of  them  in  the  passage  now  under 
discussion ;  the  remark,  therefore,  in  such  a  connexion,  is 
uncalled  for  and  unwarrantable.  And,  in  the  third  place, 
the  question,  as  to  the  intelUgibleness  of  the  old  prophecies, 
is  not,  "  whether  the  prophets  themselves  understood  fully 
what  they  wrote,"  but  "whether  they  have  in  their  writings 
asserted  errors  and  mistakes."  And  so  of  the  apostles — the 
question  is  not,  whether  they  might  have  entertained  erro- 
neous views  when  not  under  the  immediate  inspiration  of 
the  Spirit,  but  whether  they  have  taught  errors  and  mistakes 
in  their  epistles,  &c.?— a  question  which  resolves  itself  sim- 
ply into  this,  "  Whether  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 


238      THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  God?"  If  they  have  inculcated  "their  own  errors  and 
mistakes"  as  the  truth  of  God,  then  all  Scripture  is  not 
given  by  inspiration.  If  they  have  not,  then  this  discus- 
sion is  out  of  place,  for  we  are  now  speaking  only  of  their 
writings.  It  is  the  statements  which  they  have  left  on 
record,  and  which  they  asserted  to  be  the  truth  of  God, 
that  Professor  Bush  is  discussing ;  and  to  these  statements 
alone  are  his  remarks  applicable.  He  continues  as  fol- 
lows : 

"And  why  does  their  ignorance  of  this  single  point — the 
time  and  manner  of  the  second  advent — any  more  invali- 
date their  inspiration  than  a  like  ignorance  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament writers  invalidates  theirs?"  But  Professor  Bush 
loses  sight  of  the  point.  The  question  is  not,  whether  they 
were  ignorant  of  the  time  and  manner  of  the  second  advent, 
but  whether  they  have  in  their  writings  asserted  on  this 
subject  what  is  false?  Whether  they  have  recorded  their 
errors  as  the  truth  of  God?*  Let  Professor  Bush  state  an 
instance  where  either  prophet  or  apostle  asserted  his  own 
mere  opinions  or  errors  for  the  truth  of  God.  He  con- 
tinues thus :  "  The  apostle,  in  the  present  instance,  dis- 
closes the  grand  fundamental  fact,  that,  at  the  time  to 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  refers,  there  should  be  a  translation 
of  the  living  saints.  This  he  has  slated  infallibly,  because 
he  spake  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  how 
could  he  make  any  other  than  an  infallible  suggestion? 
But  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  precise  time  of  this  event 
was  any  where  made  known,"  &c.  p.  199. 

There  is  a  want  of  candour  in  this  and  kindred  state- 
ments of  Professor  Bush,  which,  taking  into  consideration 
the  nature  of  the  intensely  interesting  and  stupendous  theme 
before  us,  would  justify  a  severity  of  reply,  alike  painful  to 
the  writer  and  reader.  The  Professor  knows  as  well  as  I 
can  tell  him,  that  "  the  precise  time  of  this  event"  is  a  sub- 
ject in  no  way  connected  with  the  question.    No  one  asserts 

*  If  the  reader  would  wish  to  consult  some  of  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  clearly  asserted  or  implied,  that  the  apostles  spoke  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  he  may  turn  to  the  following:  John  xiv,  16,  26, 
and  XV.  26,  and  xvi.  7-15  ;  (compare  Matt.  x.  19,  20  ;  Mark  xiii.  11; 
Luke  xii.  11,  12;)  and  Luke  xxi.  14,  15;  Acts  ii.  4,  and  iv.  13;  and 
1  Cor.  ii.  9,  10,  12,  13,  and  vii.  40;  Eph.  iii  5;  Gal.  i.  12;  1  Thess. 
ii.  13 ;  and  1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  Acts  xv.  23,  28  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  15, 16 ;  and  Acts 
viii.  18;  andxix.  6;  ICor.  xii.  1-11,  &c.,  &c.  ... 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  239 

that  Paul  knew  it;  and  in  the  passage  under  discussion,  he 
claims  to  stale  merely  the  order  of  events,  and  leaves 
wholly  undertermine^  the  question  as  to  the  day  or  year  of 
their  occurrence.  So  far  from  having  attempted  to  state 
that  era,  it  can  be  inferred  from  nothing  he  has  said,  that 
he  even  claimed  to  know  any  thing  about  it.  To  charge 
him  with  mistake,  therefore,  on  this  subject,  and  consequent 
error  in  his  announcements  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the 
second  advent,  is  not  only  to  make  a  most  unfounded  and 
perfectly  gratuitous  accusation,  but  one  which,  unless  openly 
and  unambiguously  retracted,  must  subject  its  author  to  the 
clear  imputation  of  sanctioning  the  grossest  forms  of  skep- 
ticism and  infidelity. 

There  is,  besides  the  foregoing,  a  misrepresentation  of  the 
apostle  in  the  above  extract,  so  gross  and  so  easily  detected, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  what  the  Professor  expected 
to  accomplish  by  means  of  it.  He  represents  Paul  as  dis- 
closing in  the  passage  before  us,  "  the  grand  fundamental 
fact,"  that  at  the  period  referred  to,  to  wit,  the  second  advent, 
"there  should  be  a  translation  of  the  living  saints;"  and 
"  this  he  has  stated  infallibly,  because  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  And  to  this,  forsooth,  in  order  to  save  his  theory, 
he  would  limit  the  infallibility  of  the  apostle's  declaration. 
But  let  the  reader  turn  back  and  read  the  passage:  "  Behold,  I 
show  you  a  mystery:  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last 
trump;  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall 
BE  RAISED  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed."  vers. 
51,  52.  What  must  be  the  nature  of  that  man's  powers  of 
perception  who  can  here  see  nothing  asserted  but  the  "  trans- 
lation of  the  living  saints;"  or  who  is  so  sharpsighted  as  to 
see  a  difference  between  the  authority  on  which  it  is  slated 
that  the  saints  should  be  changed,  and  that  on  which  it  is 
asserted  that  there  will  at  the  same  time  be  also  a  resurrec- 
tion— a  simultaneous  resurrection  of  (at  least)  the  righteous 
dead?  It  would  be  insulting  the  common  sense  of  the  reader 
to  dwell  upon  this  subject.  But  if,  as  Professor  Bush  asserts, 
the  Holy  Spirit  infallibly  announced  one  of  these  occur- 
rences, he  also  announced  the  other;  and  therefore  Profes- 
sor Bushes  theory  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  infalli- 
ble announcements  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Professor  concludes  the  foregoing  remarks  with  a 
criticism  on  Matt.  xxiv.  34,  "  This  generation  shall  not  pass 


240  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

away  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled;"  which  he  supposes  to 
mean  that  "  the  event  predicted  should  occur,  or  rather  begin 
to  occur,  in  the  term  of  the  natural  lives  of  the  then  existing 
generation  of  men."  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  such  an  ex- 
position is  in  the  strictest  accordance  with  the  true  principles 
of  prophetical  interpretation.*  But  as  the  Professor  is  a 
strenuous  advocate  for  the  "  double  sense"  of  prophecy,  why 
should  he  object  so  earnestly  to  the  reference  of  ai^rn  ymd 
here,  to  the  Jewish  nation,  and  as  intended  by  our  Saviour 
to  intimate  their  permanently  remaining  distinction  from  all 
other  nations,  (while  all  other  nations  then  on  the  stage  of 
action  should  substantially  "  pass  away,")  until  all  things 
which  he  there  spake  should  be  perfectly  accomplished? 
The  primary  import  of  ymd  is  not  aevum,  aetas,  or  as  the 
Germans  say  ein  Menschenalter,  (for  this  is  wholly  second- 
ary,) but  natales,  and  hence  progenies,  familia,  genus,  &c.; 
from  which  by  a  very  natural  application,  it  comes  to  mean 
natio. — *'  This  nation  (whatever  becomes  of  the  other  nations 
of  earth)  shall  retain  its  distinctive  character  until  all  these 
things  shall  be  fulfilled."  A  reference  to  Poole's  Synopsis 
will  show  that  this  is  an  exposition  of  long  standing,  and 
sustained  by  high  authority.  Mede,  in  Fragmentis  Sac.  (sub 
finem  Dissert.  Ecclesiast.  p.  93,  or  0pp.  p.  712,)  gives  it  this 
exposition.  Markius  also  sustains  it,  see  Exercit.  Exeget.  p. 
566;  J.Christian  Wolfius  also  in  Cura  Philol.  et  Crit.  p. 533: 
StoJcius  also,  Clavis  Novi  Test,  sub  voce,  ysvid,  p.  227;  Her- 
manus  Venema,  also,  see  Dissert.  Sac.  p.  236-7,  Lib.  i.  cap. 
xi.  in  fine.  Beza  translates  y^vid  by  natio  seven  times  in 
Matthew  and  twice  in  Luke.  And  if  Professor  Bush  will 
take  his  concordance  and  run  through  the  word  as  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  he  will  find  that  it  may  properly  be  so 
translated  much  oftener.  See  Matt.  xiii.  39,  41,  42,  45,  and 
xvi.  4;  and  Luke  xi.  29,  30,  31,  50,  51;  Phil.  ii.  15;  Matt. 
xi.  16;  Mark  viii.  12,  &c.  Such  a  rendering  of  the  text  in 
question  seems  also  to  accord  better  with  the  declaration 
Jer.  xxxi.  35,  36.  These  things  should  certainly  have  led 
our  author  to  hesitate  before  charging  this  interpretation  with 
doing  "  the  most  downright  violence'''  to  the  words  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  as  he  has  offered  no  reasons  for  this  assertion,  but 

*  See  for  example  Rev  i.  1,  where  the  phrase  "things  which  must 
shortly  come  to  pass,"  (see  also  ver.  3,)  unquestionably  means  "  things 
which  must  shortly  begin  to  come  to  pass." 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  241 

affirms  it  on  the  weight  of  his  own  authority,  perhaps  the 
foregoing  authorities  may  collectively  amount  to  an  equal 
weight. 

In  the  next  paragraph  the  Professor  repeats  the  revolting 
sentiments  upon  which  we  have  animadverted  above.  For 
the  sake  of  the  curiosity  of  the  thing,  I  will  present  the 
reader  with  a  specimen :  "  The  preceding  remarks  may, 
perhaps,  be  considered  as  having  levelled  an  avenue  of  ap- 
proach to  the  true  view  of  the  apostle's  language.  He  has 
faithfully  and  unerringly  announced  that  part  of  the  divine 
counsels  which  relates  to  the  transformation  of  the  living 
saints  at  the  period  referred  to,  whatever  that  period  may  be. 
He  has  informed  us  that  they  shall  undergo  a  change  equi- 
valent to  that  which  accrues  to  the  risen,  i.  e.  the  re-living 
dead.  He  undoubtedly  supposes  that  this  change  was  to 
occur  simultaneously  with  that  promised  advent  of  the  Sa- 
viour that  was  to  be  ushered  in  during  the  life-time  of  that 
generation — a  supposition  built  upon  the  letter  of  numerous 
predictions,  but  which  the  event  has  shown  to  be,  in  this 
respect,  erroneous."  p.  200.  This  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
we  have  not  misapprehended  the  meaning  of  our  author  in 
our  remarks  on  the  previous  quotations.  The  language  of 
Paul  in  the  passage  before  us,  evinces  to  the  mind  of  the 
Professor  that  he  "  undoubtedly  supposed"  what  is  clearly 
erroneous:  and  hence  there  is  no  necessity  for  explaining 
the  text,  as  its  testimony  either  pro  or  contra  is  not  of  any 
account.  Truly  this  is  reconciling  Scripture  with  reason, 
in  perfect  accordance  with  what  he  avows  as  "  correct  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation." 

After  a  few  remarks  on  the  Judgment  (which  will  be 
hereafter  noticed,)  the  Professor  proceeds  to  close  his  re- 
marks on  this  passage: — "  In  the  mean  time,"  says  he,  "  let 
no  man  suppose  he  can  reject  the  view  now  suggested,  and 
fall  back  upon  one  that  is  free  from  equal  or  greater  diji- 
culties.^^  This  is  in  the  style  of  a  noted  remark  at  the  close 
of  the  "  Confessions^^  of  Rousseau.  But  I  deny  it  wholly, 
and  call  upon  Professor  Bush  to  prove  it  by  showing  that 
those  who  entertain  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  are,  in  order  to  maintain  it,  necessitated  to  charge  the 
apostles  with  teaching  mistakes  and  falsehoods  for  truth.  I 
throw  back  the  assertion,  therefore,  upon  Professor  Bush, 
and  pronounce  it  to  be  as  destitute  of  truth  as  it  is  of  Chris- 
tian propriety. 

21 


242       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

But,  says  the  Professor,  "The  single  declaration  of  the 
Apocalypse,  *  The  leaves  of  the  tree  shall  he  {\)  for  the 
healing  of  the  nations,  (Gentiles),'  leaves  all  the  common 
theories  of  the  future  at  fault,  because  they  afford  no  solu- 
tion of  the  problem,  'What  Gentile  nations  remain  to  be 
healed  in  heaven  V  "  p.  202.  But  suppose  this  were  even 
so,  and  how  would  it  justify  the  author  in  charging  Paul 
with  teaching  mistakes  and  errors?  No  one  needs  any 
"theory  of  the  future,"  in  order  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body;  and  it  is  perfectly  nugatory  to 
make  such  a  remark  in  such  a  connexion,  and  pretend  that 
it  has  any  application  to  the  subject.  But  further:  the 
reader  will  notice  how  easy  it  is  for  Professor  Bush,  in  order 
to  support  his  theory,  to  take  away  symbols  from  where  they 
really  are,  and  place  others  where  there  are  none.  A  few 
pages  back  he  pretended  to  find  them  (in  1  Cor.  xv.  50-53,) 
where  there  are  none;  and  now  he  pretends  there  are  none 
in  Rev.  xxii.  2,  which  is  notoriously  full  of  them.  But 
thirdly,  even  taking  it  literally,  as  the  Professor  does,  his 
exposition  and  question  are  wholly  at  fault.  For  the  New 
Jerusalem  spoken  of  has  come  down  out  of  heaven  (chap. 
xxi.  1-4,)  to  the  new  earth,  (v.  23,  24,)  and  in  it  was  the 
throne  from  which  the  crystal  stream  emanated;  (ch.  xxii.  ],) 
and  along  that  river  were  the  trees,  of  whose  leaves  the  Pro- 
fessor speaks,  (v.  2.)  The  question  as  to  "Aeare«,"  there- 
fore, is  out  of  place.  And  as  to  the  word  "  healed,''''  if  the 
Professor  had  looked  at  the  original  he  would  have  lost  his 
confidence  in  the  question  he  propounds.  e^ATnia.  (from 
Bi^ATTivo)  ministro,  servo,  see  Wahl  and  Bretschneider,)  means 
properly  ministerium,  or  as  Wahl  defines  it  in  German, 
Dienstleistung,  that  is,  rendering  of  service;  and  the 
passage  which  is  so  formidable  to  Professor  Bush,  means  no 
more  than  that  the  leaves  of  the  tree  of  life  were  for  the  ser- 
vice of  the  nations.  Or,  if  he  will  contend  for  a  stricter 
etymological  rendering  of  the  term,  let  him  take  the  follow- 
ing, which  perfectly  consists  with  the  last  named :  "  The 
leaves  of  the  tree  were  for  the  continuance  of  the  health  of 
the  nations;"  i.  e.  a  pledge  for  the  continuance  of  the  divine 
favour  to  all  eternity. 

As  Professor  Bush  has  not  attempted,  on  philological 
grounds,  to  invalidate  the  testimony  which  this  passage  bears 
to  the  utter  falseness  of  his  theory,  we  have  nothing  to  offer 
that  can  present  the  truth  which  it  asserts  more  plainly  than 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  243 

our  own  excellent  translation  of  it.  It  announces  that  the 
resurrection  is  future,  and  that  it  will  be  a  simultaneous 
event,  to  occur  at  the  sounding  of  the  last  trump,  at  which 
time  also  those  who  are  alive  shall  be  changed  from  a  mortal 
condition  to  immortality,  and  from  corruption  to  incorrup- 
tion.  Such  is  the  clear  and  unambiguous  testimony  of  the 
apostle,  and  therefore  the  theory  that  denies  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  is  false.  For  if  the  resurrection  takes  place 
hereafter,  it  cannot  of  course  be  a  resurrection  of  the  soul  or 
spirit,  and  therefore  it  must  be  a  resurrection  of  the  body. 
And  then  again,  that  the  body  is  here  clearly  referred  to  is 
manifest  from  verse  53 :  "  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on 
incorruption,  and  this  mortal  immortality."  This  language 
cannot  refer  to  the  immortal  spirit ;  for  that,  confessedly,  is 
neither  corruptible  nor  mortal.  Hence  it  cannot  refer  to  the 
clothing  of  the  spirit  with  a  new  body,  for  this  would  not  be 
"  mortal  putting  on  immortality"  in  any  sense  of  the  term  ; 
nor  could  it  be  "  this  corruptible  putting  on  incorruption." 
It  would  require  a  statement  entirely  opposite  to  that  of 
the  apostle  here,  to  describe  such  an  event.  It  therefore  can 
refer  only  to  the  body,  and  to  its  being  changed  from  a 
fragile,  mortal  state,  to  a  state  of  immortality.  So  also  in 
2  Cor.  V.  4,  Paul  uses  the  same  idea  substantially;  *'  That 
mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life ;"  i.  e.  that  it  might 
be  endowed  with  immortal  existence. 

We  have  now  brought  our  remarks  on  this  important 
chapter  to  a  close.  We  have  not  passed  over  a  single  re- 
mark or  criticism  of  Professor  Bush's,  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject, without  fully  and  fairly  stating  it;  and  we  are  willing 
that  the  reader  should  judge  whether  we  claim  more  than  is 
our  due  when  we  claim  to  have  refuted,  not  only  his  argu- 
ments, but  every  shred  or  vestige  of  an  argument  which  he 
has  offered  with  a  view  to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  this 
glorious  witness  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  It  establishes  the  fact  that  the  resurrection  is  still 
future;  that  it  will  be  simultaneous;  that  it  will  be  a  resur- 
rection of  the  body  that  died,  and  a  consequent  reunion  of 
it  with  the  soul ;  and  as  an  irresistible  consequence,  it  drives 
into  the  land  of  shadows,  or  to  a  certain  other  place  men- 
tioned by  Milton,  (Parad.  Lost,  b.  III.  445-497,)  the  tertium 
quid  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  and  the  preposterous  notions 
that  men  are  raised  from  the  dead  at  death,  (that  is,  no 
sooner  dead  than  alive  again;)  thai  the   wicked  are  not 


244  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

raised  at  all,  and  yet  possess  spiritual  bodies;  and  the  ridi- 
culous idea  of  the  poet  Goethe,  that  the  soul  is  a  germ,  which 
will  elaborate  for  itself  a  spirtual  corporeity  out  of  spiritual 
elements;  with  a  huge  heap  of  like  nonsense  which  our  author 
soberly  pretends  is  more  reasonable  than  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body. 

SECTION  IV. 

Examination  of  passages  from  Matthew. 

I.  The  next  passage  adduced  by  the  Professor  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "And  if  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out,  and 
cast  it  from  thee :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy 
members  should  perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body  should 
be  cast  into  hell.  And  if  thy  right  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it 
off,  and  cast  it  from  thee :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that 
one  of  thy  members  should  perish  and  not  that  thy  whole 
body  should  be  cast  into  hell."  Matt.  v.  29,  30. 

In  examining  any  portion  of  a  connected  and  consecutive 
discourse,  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  we  should  always  con- 
sider the  connexion  in  which  it  is  found;  for  the  connexion 
is  often  of  the  greatest  assistance  in  enabling  us  to  determine 
the  precise  import  of  any  word  or  words  as  therein  em- 
ployed. Christ,  perfectly  aware  that  many  would  deem  the 
precept  in  ver.  28,  ("  Whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  with 
impure  desire,"  &c.)  too  difficult,  if  not  impossible  to  be  ob- 
served, adds  the  tremendous  sanction  in  the  text;  showing 
plainly  that  the  perpetration  of  such  a  crime  must  expose  the 
sinner  to  the  doom  of  hell-fire :  and  consequently,  though 
it  were  difficult  to  observe  the  precept,  better  far  observe  it ; 
and  if,  in  order  to  do  this,  even  a  right  hand,  or  a  right  eye 
should  be  sacrificed,  still,  be  it  so,  rather  than  to  incur  such  a 
doom.  In  this  connexion,  therefore,  it  is  plain,  that,  though 
Christ  does  not  inculcate  the  duty  of  maiming  our  persons, 
he  does  teach  by  one  of  the  strongest  oriental  figures,  that 
we  have  no  alternative  between  a  refusal  to  part  with  sin,  at 
whatever  cost,  and  the  eternal  endurance  of  hell-fire. 

Our  Lord,  in  the  course  of  his  journeys  through  Palestine, 
sometimes  repeated  his  instructions  to  different  audiences, 
with  some  slight  variation.  Thus  the  figure  of  leaven,  he 
frequently  employed  in  his  teaching:  see  Mark  viii.  15,  and 
Matt.  xvi.  7, 18,  and  also  Luke  xii.  1-12.     And  the -parable 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  245 

of  the  leaven  he  repeated,  at  least,  on  two  different  occa- 
sions. See  Matt.  xiii.  33,  and  Luke  xiii.  20,  21.  So  also 
the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed.  Matt.  xiii.  31,  32,  and  Luke 
xiii.  18,  19.  And  so  with  the  figure  before  us.  He  em- 
ploys it  also  in  Matt,  xviii.  8,  9,  and  in  Mark  ix.  43-48;  in 
which  latter  places  he  specifies  the  hand  after  the  eye^  for 
the  reason  referred  to  above.  But  the  connexion  in  each 
place  abundantly  demonstrates  that  Christ  is  speaking  of  the 
awards  of  sin  in  a  future  world.  The  attempt  to  confine 
the  execution  of  the  threatening  to  the  present  world,  turns 
it  into  a  complete  farce.  For  the  threatening  would  be  ap- 
plicable to  the  Jewish  nation  alone;  and  to  them  only  while 
their  government  remained.  The  whole  passage,  therefore, 
as  a  threat,  or  admonition,  can  have  no  application  at  all  in 
the  present  time.  But  if  it  refer  to  the  future  world,  it  clearly 
implies  that  soul  and  body  are  alike  to  partake  of  the  punish- 
ment of  sin. 

We  have  never  regarded  this  passage  as  one  of  the 
"  seats'''  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  ;  though  it  clearly 
implies  that  doctrine.  But  as  Professor  Bush  has  introduced 
and  discussed  it,  we  shall  thoroughly  examine  it  also.  And 
after  explaining  its  import,  shall  consider  what  he  has  offered 
in  relation  to  it. 

The  term  here  translated  offend,  is  <ni.AvU\i^c0-^  a  word 
neither  in  use  among  the  classical  Greek  writers,  nor  the 
LXX. ;  though  Aquila  employs  it  several  times  in  the  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  and  Isaiah.  It  comes  from  o-jtav<r*xov,  which  properly 
means  a  stumbling  block;  or  as  Flacius  in  his  "  Clavis 
Sane.  Scrip.'''  p.  1119,  (notwithstanding  he  gives  the  word 
a  wrong  etymology,)  felicitously  explains  it,  *'  Declarat 
autem  proprie  aliquid  in  via  positum,  in  quod  ambulans  im- 
pingat,  et  corruat."  Ikclv^axI^ii  <rt  has  therefore,  plainly,  a 
causative  force,  like  the  hiphil  of  the  Hebrews,— ;/ttcio 
offendere,  as  Bretschneider  has  expressed  it:  "  if  thy  eye  or 
hand  make  thee  to  offend.''  The  term  is  used  also  not  only 
to  express  external  sins,  or  offences  manifest  to  others,  but 
also  those  that  are  internal,  or  secret.  Hence  the  idea,  so 
far  as  this  term  is  concerned,  is  this  :  "  Whatever  causes  thee 
to  sin,  (or  to  become  a  stumbling  block  to  others,)  separate 
it  from  thee  at  whatever  cost,  or  it  will  assuredly  bring  thee 
to  hell."  Now  a  hand  and  an  eye,  &c.  are  parts  of  one's 
self;  and  therefore  do  not  come  under  this  category ;  as  they 
can  be  employed  by  us  only  as  instruments  of  our  sinning. 

21* 


246  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

The  maiming  is  therefore  altogether  moral ;  and  the  figure 
is  taken  from  the  members  of  the  body,  only  to  impress  the 
great  moral  truth  more  deeply  upon  the  mind.  Porphyry 
and  Julian  might  therefore  have  spared  their  silly  merri- 
ment over  this  precept :  and  Mr.  Noble  and  Professor  Bush 
might  have  saved  a  little  credit  if  they  had  selected  some 
other  passage  upon  w^hich  to  try  their  skill  at  the  reductio 
ad  ahsurdum. 

The  next  term  to  be  considered  is  y^ma,  gehenna.  It  is 
derived  from  oun  x>j  or  the  vale  of  Hinnom;  a  very  beauti- 
ful valley  near  Jerusalem,  and  which  bounds  it  on  the  south. 
Josh.  XV.  8,  and  xviii.  6.  It  is  also  called  the  valley  of  the 
sons  of  Hinnom.  2  Kings,  xxiii.  10,  and  2  Chron.  xxviii.  3. 
In  this  valley  was  the  place  called  Tophet,  in  which  the 
Israelites,  imitating  the  horrid  superstition  of  the  neighbour- 
ing nations  worshipped  Moloch,  (the  idol  god  of  the  Ammo- 
nites,) by  sacrificing  to  him  their  own  offspring.  See  2  Kings, 
xxiii.  10.  2  Chron.  xxviii.  3.  Ezek.  xxiii.  37.  39;  (compare 
Levit.  xviii.  21,  and  xx.  2.)  The  whole  valley,  in  conse- 
quence of  this,  and  its  subsequent  pollution  by  Josiah,  was 
called  Tophet;  (from  Toph,  to  vomit  with  loathing,  as  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  observes,  Exeget.  Essays,  pp.  140, 141.)  Into 
this  place  the  filth  of  Jerusalem,  and  carcasses  of  dead  ani- 
mals, &c.  were  thrown,  and  consumed  by  fires  which  were 
kept  burning  perpetually.  And  hence,  as  Tremellius  re- 
marks, the  name  Gihanna,  or  Gehinnam,  came  to  be  em- 
ployed by  the  Jews,  Chaldeans,  and  Syrians,  to  denote 
hell  itself.  "  Undo  factum  est,  ut  postea  a  Chaldaeis,  Syris 
et  Hebraeis  antiquis  Scriptoribus  nomen  ipsam  Gihanna  vel 
Gehinnam  usuparelur  ad  significandum  locum  reprobis  in 
aeternum  cruciandis  destinatum.  Ita  usurpatur  in  lib.  Pirke- 
aboth  admodum  antique  cap.  I.  et  V."  Notae  in  Matt.  v. 
22.  The  term  yimA  is  used  twelve  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  in  each  of  which  it  designates  what  we  in  English 
properly  term  hell.*  The  strange  remark  of  Professor 
Bush  on  this  subject  will  be  noticed  presently. 

By  viewing  this  passage  in  connexion  with  its  parallel  in 
Mark  ix.  43-48,  it  will  be  at  once  perceived  also  that  Christ 
refers  to  Isa.  Ixvi.  24;  and  that  by  yiiwa.  he  means  the  place 
"  where  the  w^orm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched." 

»  Matt.  V.  22,  29,  30;  and  x,  28  ;  and  xviii.  9 ;  and  xxiii.  15,  33  ; 
Mark  ix.  43,  45,  47 ;  Luke  xii.  5  ;  Jas.  iii.  6. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  247 

Now  by  common  consent  it  is  admitted  that  the  prophet,  in 
vers.  23,  24,  of  the  chapter  referred  to,  is  speaking  of  the 
state  of  things  after  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth 
shall  have  been  created."  Mr.  Barnes  (in  loco)  remarks 
that  "  The  Saviour  (Mark  ix.  44,  46)  applied  the  langvage 
(of  Isa.  Ixvi.  24)  to  the  future  punishment  of  the"  wicked, 
and  no  one,  I  think,  can  doubt  that  in  Isaiah  it  includes 
that  consummation  of  worldly  affairs"  Vitringa  makes  sub- 
stantially the  same  remark.  Lowth,  {in  loco,)  also,  observes, 
that  though  Christ  employs  the  image  of  Gehenna  and  the 
worm  and  fire,  for  the  purpose  of  representing  hell,  yet  he 
marks  ^'•in  the  strongest  manner,  the  difference  between 
Gehenna  and  the  invisible  i)lace  of  torment.'^''  Nor  can 
the  time  referred  to  be  assigned  to  any  other  period  than 
that  of  the  consummation  of  all  things.  And  if  so,  it  is  per- 
fectly plain  from  the  prophet,  that  soul  and  body  will  be  re- 
united :  for  surely  even  Professor  Bush  would  hardly  say 
that  -^JS  (here  translated  carcass)  can  possibly  mean  a  ter- 
tium  quid,  or  "  a  resurrection-body  eliminated  at  death,"  for 
he  denies  that  the  wicked  possess  any  such  thing.  Without 
pretending,  therefore,  to  penetrate  the  veil  of  futurity,  it  may 
be  truly  affirmed,  that  as  the  wicked  are  to  serve  as  eternal 
monuments  of  God's  wrath,  upon  which  all  holy  beings 
shall  for  ever  look  and  behold  the  consequences  of  sin,  so 
carcasses  here,  and  the  term  body  in  Matt.  v.  28,  29,  must 
clearly  imply  a  resurrection  of  the  body  and  re-union  of  it 
with  the  soul. 

Now  in  commenting  on  this  passage,  Professor  Bush,  after 
referring  to  the  etymology  of  Gehenna,  and  quoting  Mr. 
Barnes  and  Dr.  Campbell  to  prove  that  the  term  was  used  as 
an  image  or  emblem  of  hell  itself,  remarks  as  follows :  "  Con- 
sequently, if  the  term  denotes  an  image — an  emblem — of 
hell,  or  place  of  torment,  it  does  not  denote  the  place  itself, 
and  of  that  (i.  e.,  the  place)  we  must  form  our  ideas  from 
other  sources."  p.  204.  It  would  be  difficult  to  give  an  ap- 
propriate character  to  this  criticism,  which  thus,  for  the  sake 
of  saving  an  unfounded  theory,  surrenders  to  Universalists 
at  once  the  whole  ground  upon  which  the  unanswerable 
argument  for  future  punishment,  derived  from  the  usage  of 
yima.  in  the  New  Testament,  is  based.  The  term,  according 
to  Professor  Bush,  can  never  mean  hell,  because  Gehenna 
is  only  an  image  or  emblem  of  it!  The  conclusion  is  as 
shallow  and  unsupported,  as  the  remark  is  uncalled  for  and 


248       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

injudicious.  What  was  the  design  of  our  Saviour  in  usinor 
the  image  or  emblem  in  this  connexion?  It  is  an  image  of 
hell,  as  the  Professor  adnnits.  Did  Christ  then  mean  that 
there  was  danger  of  mankind  noiv  being  cast  into  the  valley 
on  the  southeast  of  Jerusalem?  Professor  Bush  will  hardly 
say  so.  But  he  either  did  mean  this,  or,  that  there  is  now 
danger  of  so  sinning  against  God  as  to  incur  the  penalty 
of  being  cast  soul  and  body  into  the  fire  that  shall  never 
be  quenched — and,  consequently,  he  here  teaches  that  the 
wicked  are  to  be  raised  from  the  dead  in  order  to  undergo 
this  penalty. 

The  Professor  next  attempts  the  reductio  ad  absurdum, 
and,  after  taking  for  granted  that  "  material  fire"  is  not  an 
ingredient  in  the  future  punishment  of  the  damned,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  remark,  that  "  if  one  part  of  it  (Matt.  v.  29,  30,)  is 
to  be  taken  in  the  strictness  of  the  letter,  every  other  is  also, 
and,  consequently,  it  follows  that  if  the  body  here  literally 
means  the  body,  the  right  eye  means  the  right  eye,  and  the 
right  hand  the  right  hand ;  and  then  we  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  entrance  into  heaven  is  facilitated  by  plucking 
out  an  eye  and  cutting  off  a  hand,"  &c.,  &c.  But,  gentle 
reader,  the  entire  basis  of  this  "  consequently,"  rests  upon 
the  sand.  It  is  not  true,  that  if  one  part  of  a  passage  is  a 
figure,  that  consequently  all  of  it  must  be.  Professor  Bush 
cannot  read  his  Bible  five  minutes  in  any  part  of  it  without 
finding  his  principle  contradicted.  Even  the  passage  under 
discussion  contradicts  him — for  he  himself  admits  that  the 
important  terms,  "  offend,"  and  "  profitable,"  are  not  figura- 
tive. In  John  vii.  38,  we  read  that  Jesus  said,  "  He  that 
believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly 
shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water."  Is  then  the  first  part  of 
this  passage  figurative  because  the  latter  is  ?  If  not,  what 
becomes  of  the  Professor's  "  consequently  ?" 

But  let  us  see  how  the  Professor  himself  explains  the 
passage.  "  What  then,"  says  he,  "  does  the  passage,  when 
viewed  in  connexion  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, natively  teach?  *  Evidently,'  says  Mr.  Noble,  (Ap- 
pealj  p.  61),  '  the  offending  eye  and  hand  are  mentioned  to 
denote  certain  perverse  propensities  of  the  mind  or  spirit,  from 
which  alone,  all  the  organs  of  the  body  act;  and  as  certain 
organs  of  the  body  are  thus  put  for  certain  disorderly  func- 
tions of  the  mind  or  spirit,  which  is  the  real  man,  to  carry  on 
the  figure,  and  to  avoid  the  incongruity  of  a  mixed  metaphor, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  249 

the  whole  body  is  naturally,  and,  according  to  the  strict  laws 
of  composition,  put  for  the  whole  mind  or  spirit,  and  thus  for 
the  whole  man  as  he  exists  after  death.' "  p.  204-5.  •  We 
have  already  remarked  that  "  eye"  and  "  hand"  in  this 
passage  are  to  be  understood  figuratively.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  because  they  are  to  be  so  taken,  that  there- 
fore "  hody^^  must  be  understood  in  a  figurative  manner.  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  by  asserting  the  contrary,  has  not  only  made 
"  body"  a  figure,  but  "  helV  also ;  and  consequently  the 
threatening  implied  in  the  passage  must  be  also  b.  figurative 
threatening;  and  as  the  whole  is  based  upon  the  sin  referred 
to  in  verse  28,  that  sin  itself  must  be  figurative,  and  the 
woman  figurative ;  nor  is  it  possible  to  imagine  where  the 
Professor's  idea  would  permit  us  to  stop.  And  it  may  be 
further  remarked,  that  there  is  no  "  incongruity  of  a  mixed 
metaphor"  in  our  Saviour's  language,  if  we  take  hand  and 
eye  figuratively  and  body  literally,  as  the  writer  quoted  by 
Professor  Bush  pretends;  any  more  than  there  is  in  a 
thousand  other  passages  of  the  Bible.  If  that  gentleman 
had  found  any  where  but  in  the  Scriptures  the  expression 
*'The  Lord  God  is  a  sun  and  a  shield"  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  11,  he 
would  have  pronounced  it  an  "  incongruous  mixed  meta- 
phor." So  also  in  Hosea  x.  12,  "Sow  to  yourselves  in 
righteousness — reap  in  mercy ;  break  up  your  fallow  ground; 
for  it  is  time  to  seek  the  Lord,  till  he  come  and  rain  right- 
eousness upon  you."  Here,  according  to  these  critics,  is  a 
sad  confusion  of  the  literal  and  figurative;  for  the  third 
clause  is  strictly  literal  and  all  the  rest  highly  figurative. 
What  "  incongruity  of  a  mixed  metaphor !" 

But  we  cannot  pass  without  remark  the  exhibition  of  logic 
and  mental  philosophy  contained  in  the  foregoing  passage, 
which  has  been  endorsed  and  adopted  by  Professor  Bush. 
"  Certain  disorderly  functions  of  the  mind  or  spirit"  are 
represented  by  "  certain  organs  of  the  body,"  says  the 
writer :  and  therefore  "  the  whole  body"  must  mean  "  the 
whole  mind  or  spirit."  This  is  a  true  specimen  of  Sweden- 
borgian  reasoning ;  and  it  is  the  exact  style  in  which  all 
their  works  are  composed.  Most  of  the  uninitiated  into  the 
mysteries  of  the  Baron's  Psychology,  however,  would  say, 
that  if  "  the  eye  and  hand"  represent  some  of  the  disorderly 
functions  of  mind  or  spirit,  then  "the  whole  body"  must 
represent  all  the  disorderly  functions  of  mind  or  spirit ; 
and  this,  as  a  child  can  see,  is  the  true  inference.  According 


250       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

to  this  profound  expositor  therefore,  all  the  disorderly  func- 
tions of  mind  or  spirit  are  to  be  cast  into  hell.  And  such  is 
the  exposition  by  which  Professor  Bush's  theory  is  to  be 
sustained,  and  to  be  proved  more  consonant  with  reason 
than  "  the  common  theory.^'' 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that  even  these  writers, 
as  appears  from  the  foregoing  extract,  are  compelled  to  ad- 
mit that  "  body  "  here  means  the  whole  man  as  he  exists 
after  the  resurrection.  If  the  Bible  therefore  teaches  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  this  passage,  confessedly,  is  in- 
tended to  teach  just  what  we  have  explained  it  to  mean. 

II.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  our  author  is  the  follow- 
ing: "And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell."  Matt.  x.  28. 

This  plain  and  unequivocal  announcement,  that  those  who 
fear  not  God,  are  to  expect  to  be  cast  body  and  soul  into 
hell,  is  a  clear  implication  that  the  bodies  of  the  wicked  must 
be  raised  to  life  in  order  that  they  may  undergo  that  doom. 
And  so  the  passage  teaches  not  only  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  but  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked ;  both  of  which  are 
denied  by  Professor  Bush. 

The  testimony  afforded  by  this  passage  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  reunion  of  body  and  soul  is  so  overwhelming, 
that  even  the  Socinians  of  Poland,  who,  in  Chap.  8  of  their 
Compendiolum,  deny  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked,  are 
obliged  to  admit  it  in  direct  contrariety  to  their  avowed  sen- 
timents. Wolzogenius  (in  Pol.  Fratres  Tom.  VI.  p.  275,) 
remarks  on  it  as  follows  :  "  Properly  speaking  neither  soul 
nor  body  is  killed.  For  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  alone 
possesses  life;  but  man  lives  by  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the 
body.  Therefore  man  is  killed  by  the  separation  of  the  soul 
from  the  body."  "  As  Christ  names  the  place,  to  wit  Ge- 
henna, where  God  can  destroy  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body, 
it  appears  that  by  the  word  destroy  he  does  not  mean  simply 
to  kill,  or  to  annihilate,  (for  this  God  can  do  at  once  when  the 
soul  is  separated  from  the  body,)  but  to  torment  and  torture." 

This  celebrated  critic  therefore  (laying  aside  his  material- 
ism) explains  the  language  of  Christ  to  refer  to  a  literal  tor- 
menting of  soul  and  body  in  hell.  And  such  is  its  plain  and 
obvious  import.  But  let  us  see  how  Professor  Bush  would 
set  it  aside:  "neither  this,  nor  any  other  text,"  says  he, 
"  bearing  upon  the  life  after  death,  can  be  explained  in  dis- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  251 

regard  of  the  results  which  we  have  previously  reached  res- 
pecting the  intrinsic  and  essential  nature  of  the  spirtual  body- 
in  contradistinction  from  the  natural.  If  these  results  ad- 
dress themselves,  upon  their  own  evidence,  with  irresistible 
force  to  our  convictions,  it  is  impossible  that  the  mind,  con- 
stituted as  it  is,  can  receive  a  declaration  in  conflict  with 
them."  p.  205. 

But  to  this  repeated  appeal  for  aid  to  his  "  argument  from 
reason,"  &c.,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  again  that  the  argu- 
ment has  been  fully  proved  to  be  wholly  unsound,  and  its 
results  utterly  fallacious.  It  can  afford  Professor  Bush  no 
assistance  whatever. 

The  following  is  the  remainder  of  Professor  Bush's  criti- 
cisms upon  this  passage:  "  The  leading  scope  of  the  passage 
is,  that  there  was  a  destruction  in  this  world  which  was  not 
at  all  to  be  feared  in  comparison  with  a  destruction  which 
was  to  be  feared  in  the  next  world.  But  the  destruction  in 
both  cases  was  of  course  to  be  of  such  a  nature  as  corres- 
ponded with  the  conditions  of  being  in  each  world.  In  this 
world  it  was  a  material  body  which  might  be  killed ;  but  as 
material  bodies  do  not  pertain  to  the  spiritual  world,  the 
destruction  there  to  be  feared  was  such  as  might  befall  the 
bodies  there  possessed.  But  these  were  spiritual  bodies,  as 
we  learn  from  sound  sources  of  information,  though  not  ex- 
pressly asserted,  as  it  was  not  necessary  it  should  be,  in  the 
present  connexion.  Thus  understood,  the  words  present  no 
difficulty,  except  to  one  who  would  educe  from  them  a  proof 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body."  p.  206.  But  the  words 
in  their  obvious  import  present  no  difficulty  whatever  to 
one  who  believes  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body:  and  the  fallacy  of  the  Professor's  evasion  is  easily 
demonstrated.  For  1,  the  use  of  <^-i«a  body,  in  the  passage, 
leaves  not  the  least  possible  ground  to  conclude  that  there  is 
any  difference  between  the  present  and  future  body  of  man, 
other  than  a  change  from  a  mortal  state  to  an  immortal: 
the  body  is  identically  the  same.  The  word  is  <r^y-a.  in  both 
instances.  "Fear  not  them  who  kill  (see  Winer's  Idioms, 
Part  II.  §.  15,)  the  body,  but  fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell."  No  room  is  left  therefore,  to 
doubt  that  the  body  in  both  instances  is  one  and  the  same. 
And  then  further:  Body  [o-Zfxa^  is  in  both  instances  distin- 
guished from  soul  (^'^a:");  and  this  distinction  prevails  there- 
fore no  less  in  the  future  state  here  referred  to,  than  in  the 


252  THE  REStJRRECTION  Or  THE  BODY 

present.  This  important  consideration  Professor  Bush  was 
imperiously  called  upon  to  notice,  in  a  professed  examination 
of  the  passage,  but  he  has  passed  it  without  remark.  But 
2.  It  is  true  that  "  the  destruction  in  both  cases  must  be  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  correspond  with  the  conditions  of  being 
in  each  world,"  as  the  Professor  remarks :  and  it  is  also  true 
that  the  conditions  of  being  in  the  future  world  are  here 
plainly  stated  by  Christ.  Man  will  then  have  a  4''A:''»  (which 
Professor  Bush  calls  a  tertium  quid,)  as  well  as  a  c^/^a,  or 
material  body :  this  material  body  must,  therefore,  in  order 
to  exist  there,  be  raised  from  the  dead.  This  consequence 
is  inevitable.  3.  Further:  By  4'';t«»  Professor  Bush  con- 
stantly asserts,  the  vital  principle  is  meant,  which  forms  the 
resurrection  body.  See  pp.  66,  67,  72,  78,  &c.  In  the 
present  state  of  existence,  says  he,  this  resurrection  body 
exists  in  the  crw^a  or  material  body.  But  Christ  here  teaches 
that  not  only  the  '\^)xr}  or  "  resurrection  body,"  but  the  ow^a 
or  material  body  also,  (of  those  who  fear  not  God,)  will  be 
cast  into  hell:  and  therefore  Professor  Bush's  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  body  is  utterly  false,  because  it  directly  con- 
tradicts the  teaching  of  Christ.  Thus  clearly  does  this  pas- 
sage announce  the  great  doctrine  for  which  we  contend: 
and  Professor  Bush  in  no  conceivable  way  can  explain  crw^a 
to  mean  the  resurrection  body  or  tertium  quid  of  his  own 
theory,  for  thus  he  would  have  two  resurrection  bodies,  a 
■^xv  ^^^  ^  (Twfitt,  and  this  is  contrary  to  his  whole  theory. 
But  finally  i  he  has  not  been  able  even  to  attempt  an  expla- 
nation of  this  passage,  without  involving  himself  in  gross 
contradictions.  The  destruction  to  be  feared  in  a  future 
world,  says  he,  is  "  such  as  might  befall  the  bodies  there 
possessed.  But  these,"  continues  he, "  were  spiritual  bodies.'''* 
Now  throughout  his  book  he  openly  denies  the  resurrection 
of  the  wicked.  Of  course,  then,  if  they  are  not  raised,  they 
can  have  no  bodies,  that  is,  spiritual  bodies  (according  to  his 
theory,)  such  as  the  righteous  possess.  Yet  here  he  is  forced 
to  admit  that  those  that  fear  not  God  have  both  a  -^xn  ^^^  ^ 
(jw/ta  in  the  world  to  come.* 

*  Episcopius  referring  to  4'^^"  ^^  this  passage  remarks;  "  Vitam 
banc  appellat  T«y  4''/t*"'J  quod  notandum  est,  ne  putemus  subliliter 
distinguendum  esse  inter  t«v  4'^;t'"'»  ^^  '^°  Tvsuya*^  promiscue  enim  his 
vocabulis  uti  Spiritum  Sanctum  ex  hoc  loco  patet,  et  similibus:  vide 
Job  xii.  10 ;  xxvii.  3 ;  Habac.  ii.  29 ;  Zach.  xii.  1."  0pp.  Tom.  I. 
p.  54. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  253 

III.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  Professor  Bush  is  the 
followmg:  "But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God, 
saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob.  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but 
of  the  living."  Matt.  xxii.  31,  32.  See  also  the  parallel 
passages  in  Mark  xii.  18-27,  and  Luke  xx.  27-38. 

In  his  remarks  on  this  passage,  Professor  Bush  asserts 
that  it  plainly  teaches  his  theory  that  the  resurrection  takes 
place  at  death.  We  shall  therefore  in  the  first  place  notice 
what  the  Professor  has  advanced;  and  then  proceed  to  ex- 
plain the  passage  itself. 

The  Professor  correctly  remarks  that  "  the  true  question 
in  debate  (between  Christ  and  the  Sadducees)  is  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.''''  "  This,"  continues  he,  "  the  Saddu- 
cees denied,  and  the  Saviour  intended  to  affirm.  Now  it  is 
obvious  that  if  the  term  'resurrection,'  in  its  correct  usage 
in  the  Gospels  and  the  New  Testament  generally,  denotes 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  we  cannot  deem  ourselves  at 
liberty  to  depart  from  that  sense  in  the  present  instance. 
Not  the  slightest  evidence  appears  that  our  Lord  intended  to 
use  the  term  in  any  other  than  its  common  and  well  known 
acceptation.  If  its  ordinary  use  implies  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  it  doubtless  implies  it  here."  pp.  206-7.  Some,  we 
are  aware,  will  take  exception  to  this  canon  of  criticism ;  but 
we  entirely  accord  with  the  remarks  of  the  Professor,  so  far 
as  they  apply  to  the  instance  before  us  of  the  usage  of 
avd<XTA<rtc.  The  Sadducces  and  our  Saviour  here  undoubtedly 
employ  this  term  in  its  commonly  received  acceptation. 

Thus  far  we  agree;  let  us  now  take  up  the  point  wherein 
we  do  not  agree.  The  Professor  continues  thus:  "But  if 
that  be  the  true  sense,  it  is  equally  obvious  that  our  Lord's 
argument  is  not  an  explicit,  pointed,  and  direct  refutation  of 
the  Sadducees'  error;  for  how  does  the  fact  that  the  spirits 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  now  living,  prove  the 
resurrection  of  their  bodies?''^  To  this  I  remark,  that  it  is 
not  equally  obvious  that  our  Lord's  argument  on  this  suppo- 
sition furnishes  no  explicit,  pointed,  and  direct  refutation  of 
the  Sadducees'  error.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  as  man  is 
dead  when  soul  and  body  are  separated,  so  he  is  raised  from 
the  dead  when  soul  and  body  are  reunited.  And  as  the 
Sadducees  denied  the  existence  of  the  spirit  of  man  (see  Acts 
xxiii.  8,)  it  was  by  common  consent,  between  themselves 

22 


254  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

and  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  taken  for  granted,  that  if  this  point 
could  be  established,  the  future  reunion  of  body  and  soul 
must  follow  as  a  matter  of  course.  Hence  to  prove  this 
point,  Christ  refers  to  a  passage  in  the  Pentateuch,  (the  only- 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  which  they  received  as  divine,) 
from  which  the  existence  of  the  spirit  is  plainly  inferred. 
And,  therefore,  on  the  admitted  principles  of  both  sides  the 
argument  was  perfectly  conclusive.* 

To  object  to  such  a  mode  of  argumentation,, so  common 
and  so  universally  approved  as  this,  only  proves  that  Pro- 
fessor Bush  felt  the  extreme  necessity  of  making  out  a  spe- 
cial case.  In  his  own  book  he  constantly  reasons  thus  from 
the  admitted  principles  of  those  whom  he  opposes.  And  not 
only  so,  but  even  on  his  own  exposition  of  this  passage  he 
makes  the  Saviour  reason  inferentially;  as  the  whole  applica- 
tion of  the  argument  is  only  an  inference  which  he  deduces 
from  the  passage  quoted — "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living."  To  object  therefore  to  the  position  that 
the  Saviour  here  refutes  the  Sadducees  "  by  inference,"  is 
to  object,  not  only  without  any  valid  reason  for  doing  so, 
but  in  direct  contrariety  to  his  own  exposition  of  the  argu- 
ment. 

But  let  us  hear  our  author  further.  After  quoting  one  or 
two  writers  to  illustrate  his  meaning,  he  adds,  ''  Writers  of 
this  class  consider  the  passage  as  simply  teaching  by  infer- 
ence the  resurrection  of  the  body;  i.  e.  if  the  spirits  of  the 
patriarchs  are  alive  now^  their  bodies  will  be  hereafter.  But 
we  not  only  dissent  from  this  interpretation ;  we  remonstrate 
against  it.  We  contend  that  it  is  a  violent  wresting  of  a 
word  from  its  plain,  natural,  obvious  sense,  in  order  to  make 
it  subserve  the  purposes  of  a  different  and  preconceived 
theory."  p.  207.  The  former  part  of  this  statement  is  suffi- 
ciently replied  to  above,  and  as  to  the  latter  part,  it  is  difficult 

*  The  Jews  uniformly  considered  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  as  involved  in  Ihat  of  immortality.  See  Schoetgenii  Horcs 
Heb.  et  Talmud,  ad  Jno.  5.  Hence,  as  Dr.  Knapp  remarks,  "  They 
would  regard  the  restoration  of  man  as  incomplete  unless  his  body 
were  restored.  They  believed  the  latter  essential  to  the  entire  resti- 
tution of  man,  because  in  the  present  life  he  consists  of  both  body 
and  soul.  And  as  the  body  here-  participates  in  our  virtues  and 
vices,  &c.,  so  they  supposed  that  it  would  hereafter  participate  in  our 
reward  or  punishment.  Hence  they  represent  the  intermediate  state 
in  which  the  soul  exists  without  the  body,  as  an  imperfect  state." 
Knapp* 8  Theology^  p.  466,  §  141.  London  ed. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  255 

to  refer  to  it  without  administering  a  rebuke  which  Professor 
Bush  has  more  than  a  score  of  times  deserved  in  the  course 
of  this  discussion.  To  hear  him  thus  accusing  those  who 
here  give  to  avda'taaii  its  well  ascertained  and  only  proper 
import  in  such  a  connexion,  of  "  wresting  a  word  from  its 
plain,  natural,  obvious  sense,  to  make  it  consistent  with  a 
preconceived  theory,"  and  this,  at  the  same  time  that  he  has 
throughout  his  book  not  scrupled  to  exhibit  some  of  the  most 
glaring  as  well  as  revolting  instances  of  such  conduct  that 
modern  times  have  witnessed,  certainly  evinces  on  his  part 
a  length  of  not  only  "  exegetical  "  but  rationalistic  and  moral 
hardihood  that  we  were  hardly  prepared  to  expect. 

But  it  is  amusing  to  see  how  circular  is  Professor  Bush's 
reasoning  on  this  subject.  He  first  ascertains  the  "  natural, 
obvious  sense"  of  dvadT-afjcj,  almost  entirely  (if  not  quite  so,) 
from  the  exposition  which  his  theory  requires  that  word  here 
to  bear :  and  then  he  proves  the  truth  of  his  theory  by  this 
"  natural,  obvious  sense  "  of  the  word.  And  yet  in  the  same 
breath  he  makes  a  great  parade  of  convicting  others  of 
reasoning  in  a  circle. 

But  let  us  follow  our  author  in  his  fervid  declamation. 
"  If  there  is  a  palpable,  we  had  almost  said  an  unmistakable, 
averment  in  the  compass  of  holy  writ,  it  is,  that  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  proved  from  the  fact,  that 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were  living  when  Christ  spake 
these  words,  and  consequently  must  have  been  raised,  and 
must  be  living  in  resurrection-bodies.  Otherwise,  as  Dr. 
Dwight  remarks,  *  the  declaration  concerning  them  is  no 
proof  of  the  resurrection.'  What  kind  of  resurrection  is  that 
in  which  nothing  is  raised?''''  pp.  207-8. 

The  Professor  here  cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  argument 
as  stated  by  Christ,  but  must  still  resort  to  inference.  No 
one  doubts  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  then  living. 
And  it  being  proved  by  Christ  that  they  were  living,  though 
their  bodies  had  long  before  decayed,  it  followed  that  they 
were  not  to  remain  in  an  imperfect  disembodied  state,  but 
should  be  restored  to  life — to  a  reunion  of  body  and  spirit. 
And  the  fact  that  they  now  thus  live,  proves  that  they  shall 
be  raised  from  the  dead.  The  argument  is  perfectly  plain 
and  obviously  conclusive.  But  says  Professor  Bush,  the  fact 
that  they  were  then  alive  proves  that  they  "  mvst  have  been 
raised,  and  be  living  in  resurrection  bodies."    But  how  does 


256        THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

it  prove  this?  Is  there  no  such  thing  as  the  soul  living  sepa- 
rate from  such  a  body?  If  there  is  not,  then  Professor 
Bush's  argument  has  force.  But  he  says  that  the  righteous 
alone  are  raised,  or  obtain  resurrection  bodies;  and  yet  the 
wicked  live,  says  he,  in  a  future  state.  The  soul  therefore 
ifnay  live,  (even  according  to  our  author  himself,)  though 
destitute  of  such  a  body:  and  how  does  the  fact,  therefore, 
that  the  patriarchs  were  then  alive,  prove  that  they  had  been 
raised  from  the  dead?  Even  on  our  author's  own  principles, 
they  may  have  been  living  in  a  separate  state.  Such,  how- 
ever, is  the  amount  of  his  logic;  and  I  sincerely  wish  that 
there  was  no  heavier  charge  in  this  instance  than  against 
his  logic.  The  manner  in  which  Dr.  D wight  is  brought  in 
to  support  this  absurd  inference  can  scarcely  without  diffi- 
culty be  reconciled  with  strict  candour.  Let  the  reader  turn 
again  to  the  extract;  these  patriarchs  "must  have  been 
raised,  and  must  be  living  in  resurrection  bodies.  Other- 
wise, as  Dr.  Dwight  remarks,  '  the  declaration  concerning 
them  is  no  proof  of  the  resurrection.'  "  Now,  reader.  Dr. 
Dwight  never  either  asserted  or  believed  that  these  patri- 
archs had  thus  been  raised  from  the  dead,  as  this  "  other- 
wise "  would  make  him  assert. 

But  he  expands  the  idea  contained  in  the  foregoing  quo- 
tation more  at  large  as  follows ;  and  let  us  hear  him .  before 
we  proceed  further  with  our  reply.  "  But  their  bodies  cer- 
tainly had  not  been  raised,"  says  he,  "  and  can  the  sun  in 
the  heavens  be  more  obvious  to  the  senses  than  the  conclu- 
sion to  the  mind,  that  the  '  resurrection  of  the  dead,'  as  here 
affirmed  by  the  Saviour,  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
resuscitation  of  dead  bodies?  And  are  we  not  justified  in 
maintaining,  that  the  only  resurrection  of  the  dead  ever  to 
be  experienced  by  man,  is  that  of  which  these  patriarchs 
have  long  since  been  the  subjects?  Is  there  more  than  one 
kind  of  resurrection  ?  Does  not  our  Lord's  language  estab- 
lish this  as  the  genuine  -and  legitimate  sense  of  the  term? 
Is  it  not  exactly  tantamount  to  future  state?''''  In  the  same 
style  he  proceeds  through  the  rest  of  his  remarks  on  this 
passage,  (occupying  half  a  page,)  and  endeavours  to  estab- 
lish this  notion.  But,  in  addition  to  what  has  been  offered 
above,  I  remark,  that  all  this  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Pro- 
fessor Bush's  own  exposition  elsewhere :  and  therefore  it  is 
unworthy,  of  a  moment's  consideration,  or  any  serious  refu- 
tation until  he  has  rendered  his  argument  consistent  with 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  257 

itself.  Speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  the  saints  mentioned 
in  Matt,  xxvii.  50-53,  he  says,  "but  not  then  (i.  e.  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  crucifixion)  was  the  time  for  their  true  and 
invisible  resurrection,  for  it  was  designed  that  in  all  things 
He  should  have  the  preeminence."  "And  it  behooved  not 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  members  should  precede  that  of 
the  Head.  Accordingly  the  interval  of  three  days  elapsed 
before  they  came  forth  (the  mere  bodies  were  not  they,)  and 
went  into  the  holy  city,  and  appeared  in  spiritual  vision  to 
many  of  their  brethren."  pp.  :iil7,  218.  How  then  can  it 
be  true  that  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  had  been  raised  from 
the  dead,  and  were  living  in  resurrection  bodies  when  Christ 
spoke  the  words  in  Matt.  xxii. ;  and  yet  that  the  resurrection 
of  the  members  did  not  precede  that  of  their  head  ?  Is  not 
such  criticism  beneath  all  serious  reply  or  refutation? 

The  Professor  therefore  has  totally  failed  to  adduce  from 
this  passage  any  proof  whatever  that  the  resurrection  takes 
place  at  death;  or  that  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  the 
same  thing  with  the  resurrection.  In  the  course  of  our  re- 
marks on  his  criticisms,  the  true  import  of  our  Saviour's 
language  has  been  made  apparent.  The  view  which  we  have 
presented  is  susceptible  of  the  fullest  confirmation.  Home 
in  his  ^^ Critical  Introd.  to  the  Scriptures,^^  Part  II.  B.  II. 
chap.  8.  §  I.  vol.  I.  p.  423,  thus  maintains  the  soundness  of 
the  entire  principle  upon  which  we  have  based  this  interpre- 
tation. "  By  INFERENCES,  we  mean  certain  corollaries  or 
conclusions  legitimately  deduced  from  words  rightly  ex- 
plained ;  so  that  they  who  either  hear  or  read  them  may 
form  correct  views  of  Christian  doctrine  and  Christian  duty. 
And  in  this  deduction  of  inferences  we  are  warranted  both 
by  the  genius  of  language,  which,  when  correctly  under- 
stood, not  only  means  what  the  words  uttered  in  themselves 
obviously  imply,  but  also  what  may  be  deduced  from  them 
by  legitimate  consequences ;  and  likewise  by  the  authority 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  who  have  sanctioned  this 
practice  by  their  example.  To  illustrate  this  remark  by  a 
single  instance: — Our  Lord  (Matt.  xxii.  23-32,)  when  dis- 
puting with  the  Sadducees,  cited  the  declaration  of  Jehovah 
recorded  in  Exod.  iii.  6.  '  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob ;'  and  from  this  he  proved  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  inferentially,  or  by  legitimate  consequence.'* 

Such  was  truly  the  argument  of  our  Redeemer;  and  the 
man  who  would  object  to  his  "  dialectics"  in  this  matter, 
22* 


258       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

and  call  the  argument  inconclusive,  in  order  to  justify  his 
appropriation  of  it  to  the  defence  of  a  theory  which  is  as 
destitute  of  reason  as  the  wildest  dreams  of  Ignatius  Loyola, 
has  afforded  but  poor  proof  of  a  superior  acquaintance  with 
true  hermeneutics  and  logic.  Wherein  does  such  conduct 
differ  from  the  arrogance  of  Priestley  and  Belsham,  who  have 
ventured  to  charge  the  Apostle  Paul  with  reasoning  incon- 
clusively? 

Whitby  is  an  author  to  whom  Professor  Bush  sometimes 
refers  with  approbation.  In  his  criticisms  upon  this  place 
that  learned  writer  remarks,  that  "  Hence  also  it  is  evident 
against  Heinsius,  and  others,  on  this  place,  that  avdataai^y 
even  when  it  is  not  joined  with  flesh,  or  body,  signifies  the 
resurrection  of  the  Jlesh,  or  body;  and  when  the  resur- 
rection  of  the  dead  is  mentioned,  as  here,  it  never  bears 
ANY  OTHER  SENSE."  "  Those  learned  men  are  very  much 
mistaken  who  say,  that  Christ  designed  not  here  to  prove 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  only  the  avaeiaai^,  or  life 
of  the  soul  after  death.  For,  (1st,)  the  argument  of  the 
Sadducees  being  taken  from  the  supposition,  that  if  there 
was  a  resurrection,  there  must  be  marriage,  and  the  persons 
raised  must  be  man  and  wife,  as  they  were  before,  shows 
plainly,  that  they  put  the  question  concerning  the  resur- 
rection of  the  body;  for  marriage  belongs  not  to  separate 
souls,  but  only  to  persons  in  the  body.  And,  therefore,  if 
Christ  said  any  thing  pertinent  to  their  objection,  and  op- 
posed his  argument  to  that  which  they  designed  to  disprove, 
he  must  speak  of,  and  prove  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
And,  therefore,  Methodius  (apud  Epiph.  Hser.  64,  §.  35,) 
well  notes,  that  if  Christ  had  not  done  this,  but  only  had 
asserted  the  permanency  of  the  soul,  he  had  not  answered, 
but  confirmed  the  reasoning  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees.  (2dly.)  Christ  here  declares  the  Sadducees  thus 
erred,  not  knowing  the  power  of  God,  ver.  20.  Now  that 
consists  not  in  sustaining  an  immortal  soul  in  life,  but  in 
raising  the  body  from  the  dust  to  life:  Acts  xxvi.  8;  Eph.  i. 
19,  20;  Phil.  iii.  21;  Heb.  xi.  19.  And,  (3dly.)  This  is  ex- 
tremely  evident  from  the  very  words  of  Christ,  both  here 
and  in  St.  Mark  and  Luke.  For  (1.)  the  question  put  to 
Christ  is  not  put  thus :  If  their  souls  live  whose  wife  is 
she?  but,  £1/  trj  avaffr'acffc,  ofav  avadtuidi,  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, when  they  shall  arise,  whose  wife  shall  she  then  be? 
Mark  xii.  23.     To  which  Christ  answers  thus:    "O^av  ix 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  259 

vtx^iliv  avaotuah  idhen  they  arise  from  the  dead,  (ver.  25,) 
when  they  partake,  -rijs  ava(j't da Eu>i  'I'ijj  sx  vsx^mv,  of  the  re- 
surrection from  the  dead,  (Luke  xx.  35,)  they  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage.  Now  a  time  so  deter- 
mined, and  respecting  what  shovld  be  hereafter,  cannot 
refer  to  the  present  state  of  their  souls,  which  in  no  sense 
are  raised  from  the  dead,  but  only  to  the  future  condition  of 
their  bodies."  Paraphrase,  &c.,  in  loco,  Vol.  I.,  p.  184. 
We  quote  the  above,  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving  Whitby's 
authority,  but  his  argument:  and  it  is  triumphantly  con- 
clusive. Professor  Bush  is  acquainted  with  the  commentary 
from  which  this  extract  is  taken,  for  in  other  places  in  his 
book  he  both  quotes  and  refers  to  it;  and  in  such  an  exami- 
nation of  the  subject  under  discussion  as  he  professes  to 
have  given,  he  was  certainly  called  upon  to  have  fairly 
stated,  and  to  have  fully  met  the  foregoing  argument,  before 
he  should  have  ventured  to  pursue  the  course  which  he  has 
taken  with  the  passage  before  us.  When  a  man  comes 
before  the  public,  as  he  has  done,  claiming  to  have  come  up 
to  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  the  ascertained  results  of  his 
scientific  and  scriptural  investigation,  and  professing  to  an- 
nounce conclusions  which  must  essentially  modify  the  views 
which  the  Christian  world  has  ever  entertained  respecting 
the  most  stupendous  and  momentous  themes  connected  with 
the  future  destiny  of  our  race,  it  is  expected  that  he  should 
be  the  last  person  in  the  world  who  would  evade  a  difficulty 
by  misstating  a  question,  or  by  refusing  to  notice  an  argu- 
ment which  he  is  unable  to  obviate.* 

*  If  the  reader  would  desire  to  see  this  argiiment  of  our  Saviour 
with  the  Sadducees  further  discussed,  he  will  find  it  done  at  lull 
length  and  most  ably,  in  the  singularly  acute  '■'Analysis  and  Scholia,''' 
of  Piscator,  (Tom.  II.,  120 ;)  and,  also,  in  Parens  (Comment.,  in  loco;) 
and,  likewise,  with  equal  ability  and  at  great  length,  by  Episcopius, 
in  his  "JVbfte  in  Matt.,  0pp.  Tom.  I.,  p.  146-149.  Each  of  these 
writers  draws  out  the  argument  fully,  and  in  a  complete  syllogism. 
See,  also,  Poole's  excellent  Note  on  the  subject  in  his  "  Annotations  :" 
and  the  learned  dissertations  of  Grotius,  in  loco ;  and,  also,  Wolzo- 
genius,  Polon.  Frat.  VI.,  p.  362-365,  and  664,  665.  Lightfoot,  also, 
has  presented  some  important  considerations  in  his  "  Specilegia,*'  or 
"  Handful  of  Gleanings  from  Exodus,"  Works,  Vol.  I.,  p.  701,  folio; 
and,  also,  Witsius,  in  his  (Econ.  Foed.,  B.  111.,  cap.  II.,  §§.  11-15. 
A  reference  to  either  of  these  well  known  critics  will  evince  how 
great  has  been  the  unfairness  of  Professor  Bush  in  treating  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration  as  he  has  done. 


260       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

IV.  The  next  passage  is  the  following.  I  quote  it  just  as 
it  is  given  by  Professor  Bush,  both  in  Greek  and  English,  for 
reasons  which  will  be  stated  presently. 

Matthew  xxvii.  50-53. 

GR.  ENG.  VERS. 

*  O  be  ^Irjaovg  Tid-Kiv  x^a|aj  Jesus,  when  he  had  cried 

^oivri  1^^7'^'^V  ^^V^^  *o  Ttvevfia,  again    with    a    loud    voice, 

yielded  up  the  ghost. 

Kal   ISov,  -to  xatariitaafia  And  behold  the  vail  of  the 

tov  vaov  lox^<^^v  f'i'  ^^°'  ^^^  temple   was    rent   in    twain 

avco^fv    fcoj    xdtu,    xo.1  ly    y^  from  the  top  to  the  bottom: 

iasCaOyjj    xal  at   TteV^at  iax^'  ^^d  the  earth  did  quake,  and 

o^tjaav'  the  rocks  rent; 

xai,  fd  fxvrifizla  avt^^x^v^^^^  ^"^  ^^^  graves  were  open- 

xal  Tto'K%d  cfw/tar'a  f  wv  xsxoo-  ed,  and  many  bodies  of  the 

fXYifiivcav  ayiov  '^yi^Ori'  saints  which  slept,  arose; 

xai  iiiTJ^ovtii  sx  tCiiV  fivrj-  And  came  out  of  the  graves 

fisimv  fittd  -f^v  eys^sLv  avtov  after    his    resurrection,    and 

cl^rj'K^ov  d^  f^v  dyiav  Tio'Kvv  xai  went  into  the  holy  city,  and 

avs^tavU^'Tjaav  TtoXXtoj.  appeared  unto  many. 

The  Professor,  after  a  few  common  place  remarks  on  the 
subject  of  the  resurrection,  introduces  his  criticism  on  this 
passage,  by  expressing  a  hope  that  he  shall  "  present  it  in  a 
somewhat  new  and  interesting  light:  and  by  observing  that 
all  conjectures  as  to  the  particular  persons  here  said  to  be 
raised  are  vain  and  fruitless;  and  likewise  all  attempts  to 
ascertain  what  became  of  the  raised  bodies.  "  They  were 
in  their  graves,"  says  he — "  they  were  raised:  this  is  the 
extent  of  our  information  respecting  them."  p.  210-211. 
He  then  proceeds  as  follows: 

"  In  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the  event  itself,  we 
observe,  first,  that  the  language  of  the  text  is  to  be  especially 
noted:  7toM.d  aafiata  tiov  xBxocfii^ixsvav  ouytcav  ^Jyt^^*?)  many 
bodies  of  saints  that  slept  arose.  A  question  of  no  small 
difficulty,  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  these  words,  is  sug- 
gested by  the  fact,  that  although  these  bodies  are  said  to 
have  *  arisen'  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  yet  they  did  not 
come  forth  from  the  graves  till  three  days  afterwards ;  and 
even  then  it  does  not  clearly  appear  that  this  '  coming  forth' 
is  predicated  of  the  bodies;  for  the  language  is,  xai  llfX^ovr'?? 
ix  tuiv  [ivTjfifCoiVi  Uitd  iriv  tyi^aiv  dutov,  siar^%^ov  ftj  T'lyv  aycav 


^       or  TBE       r 

ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  ^^♦'^  261 

TtoXiVi  xal  evs^avic^rjoav  7to%xoli,  and  having  come  forth  from 
the  graves  after  his  resurrection,  they  entered  into  the  holy 
city  and  appeared  unto  many,  where  it  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked, that  the  participle  flfX^oj/ffj  is  in  the  masculine 
gender,  whereas  the  previous  noun,  ooifiata,  bodies,  is  in  the 
neuter.  What  then  is  precisely  the  effect  denoted  by  the  verb 
Vyk^V^  arose?  Or,  in  other  words,  what  was  the  condition 
of  these  bodies,  as  distinguished  from  their  previous  condi- 
tion,  during  the  three  days  prior  to  the  issuing  forth  of  the 
persons  (the  ol  ih^^ovte?)  from  their  tombs?  And  was  it 
these  bodies,  that  then  came  forth  and  appeared  to  those 
that  saw  them?  If  so,  why  is  the  gender  changed?  Why 
do  we  not  read  i^e^'^ovta  instead  of  sh^'^ovts^l  These  are 
points  of  very  difficult  solution,  though  liable  to  be  over- 
looked by  the  mere  reader  of  the  English  translation,  which 
do6s  not,  because  it  could  not,  present  the  nicer  shades  of 
the  original.  The  natural  impression  produced  by  the  phrase 
'  the  dead  bodies  arose,'  would  doubtless  be,  that  they  were 
reanimated  by  the  spirits  which  formerly  inhabited  them, 
and  thus  from  dead  carcasses,  became  living  persons.  But 
then  it  strikes  us  as  exceedingly  strange,  that  a  multitude  of 
living,  conscious,  intelligent  persons  should  be  abiding  in 
their  sepulchral  habiliments,  for  the  space  of  three  days,  in 
the  tombs,  in  which  they  had  been  deposited  at  death." 

There  are  two  points  in  reference  to  this  subject,  here 
introduced  by  Professor  Bush,  each  of  which  calls  for  a  re- 
mark: the  asserted  difficulty  respecting  the  resurrection  of 
these  bodies  "  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion;"  and  the  change 
of  gender,  from  the  neuter  to  the  masculine.  He  evidently 
wishes  to  involve  this  plain-speaking  text  in  a  fog,  and  the 
sequel  will  show  how  he  has  succeeded  therein.  We  shall 
attend  to  each  of  his  "  difficulties"  in  their  order. 

1.  As  to  the  "  question  of  no  small  difficulty,  as  to  the 
precise  meaning  of  these  words,  suggested  by  the  fact,  that 
although  these  bodies  are  said  to  have  *  arisen'  at  the  time 
of  the  crucifixion,  yet  they  did  not  come  forth  from  the 
graves  till  three  days  afterwards" — I  remark  that  it  is  a 
difficulty  that  has  no  existence  except  in  an  erroneous  point- 
ing of  the  passage.  Professor  Bush,  in  v.  50-53,  has  fol- 
lowed the  pointing  of  no  codex  with  which  I  am  acquainted. 
It  is  not  the  pointing  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  either  as  given 
by  Stephens,  or  Leusden,  or  Bagster's  Polyglott ;  or  of  the 
text  of  Mill,  or  Bengel  or  Griesbach.     Professor  Bush  owes 


262       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

it  to  himself  to  state  whose  text  he  has  followed.  And  this 
is  not  all;  but  he  has  presumed  to  change  the  pointing  of 
our  English  version  by  putting  a  semicolon  after  "arose;" 
apparently  to  give  countenance  to  this  alleged  dificvlty. 
And  1  call  upon  Professor  Bush  to  state  what  edition  he  has 
followed  in  this  matter;  for  he  cannot  but  be  sensible  that 
in  this  connexion  it  is  an  affair  of  grave  and  serious  impor- 
tance so  far  as  he  is  concerned.  Where  is  the  English  text 
pointed  as  he  has  given  it  above?  I  have  examined  a  large 
number  of  the  best  editions  and  find  it  in  none  of  them. 

The  punctuation  of  the  Professor  is  obviously  designed  to 
represent  the  rising  of  the  bodies  referred  to,  to  be  synchroni- 
cal  with  the  rending  of  the  veil,  or  with  the  death  of  Christ; 
and  their  coming  out  of  their  graves  to  be  after  his  resurrec- 
tion :  and  thus  an  air  of  mystery  is  to  be  thrown  around  the 
passage,  under  cover  of  which  he  expects  to  avoid  the  diffi- 
culty which  it  throws  in  the  way  of  his  system.  In  times 
when  the  authority  of  the  Greek  punctuation  was  not  under- 
stood, it  might  have  been  allowable  to  acknowledge  the  ex- 
istence of  a  difficulty  here;  but  why  could  not  Professor 
Bush  have  openly  admitted  that  no  such  difficulty  exists  in 
the  best  versions.  In  the  excellent  one  of  Bengel,  for  ex- 
ample, the  pointing  obviates  the  difficulty  entirely.  After 
iaxt'iidTjiiav  at  the  end  of  v.  51,  there  is  a  colon;  and  from 
this  until  the  end  of  v.  53,  the  comma  is  the  only  inter- 
vening point.  Griesbach  points  it  somewhat  differently,  but 
the " difficulty"  is  equally  well  obviated:  xai  r^  yrj  sasladyj,  xai 
at  TtsTf^at  itSx^oBriaav^  xai  •ta  fxvvjfxsla  avectx^^^f^^'  ^cat  rto'KT.d 
(fiiifiata  "tZiV  xsxotixyjixevMV  ayt'cov  i^ys^Ofj^  xai  t^sT^Oovts?  sx  TfHtv 
[jLvvjfxsloiVi  (XB'ta  triv  eys^atv  avtov  (la7^%.9ov  &c.  Here,  the  earth- 
quake, the  rending  of  the  rocks,  and  the  opening  of  the 
graves  are  represented  as  synchronizing  with  the  rending 
of  the  veil  and  the  death  of  Christ:  while  the  raising  of  the 
bodies,  and  their  coming  from  their  sepulchres  and  going 
into  the  city  is  represented  as  occurring  after  his  resurrec- 
tion. Where  then  is  the  alleged  difficulty  of  Professor  Bush, 
from  the  fact  of  their  being  "  said  to  have  arisen  at  the  time 
of  the  crucifixion? 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  also  that  on  the  same  page  on 
which  he  quotes  Matt,  xxvii.  50-53,  as  well  as  on  the  pre- 
ceding page,  he  has  a  long  quotation  from  Campbell  on  the 
Gospels.  Now  while  he  had  this  work  of  that  eminent 
critic  in  his  hand,  why  could  he  not  have  referred  the  reader 


ASSERTED   AND    DEFENDED.  263 

to  his  translation  of  this  passage?  It  is  as  follows:  "Jesus 
having  again  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  resigned  his  spirit. 
And  behold  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  two  from  top 
to  bottom,  the  earth  trembled,  and  the  rocks  split.  Graves 
also  burst  open,  and  after  his  resurrection,  the  bodies  of 
several  saints  who  slept  were  raised,  came  out  of  the  graves, 
went  into  the  holy  city,  and  were  seen  by  many."  To  men- 
tion an  alleged  difficulty,  and  to  show  that  its  attempted  solu- 
tion is  unsatisfactory,  and  then  to  use  the  difficulty  to  cast 
dust  in  the  eyes  of  a  reader,  is  a  procedure  which  has  some- 
times been  adopted  with  some  show  of  fairness ;  but  Profes- 
sor Bush  has  for  this  purpose  asserted  the  existence  of  a 
difficulty  which  he  could  not  help  knowing  has  received  an 
abundant  and  every  way  satisfactory  solution. 

2.  The  other  difficulty  of  the  Professor  is  in  respect  to  the 
gender,  and  the  agreement  of  aafiata  bodies,  which  is  neuter, 
with  s^tMovts^  which  is  masculine.  Why  was  the  gender 
changed?  he  asks :  and  he  would  try  to  find  here  a  place  to 
introduce  his  tertium  quid.  But  there  is  no  place  here  for 
such  an  introduction.  The  gender  is  changed  for  the  best  of 
reasons.  The  aCj/xata  or  bodies,  were  revived  by  their  union 
with  the  soul ;  and  when  ihey  came  out  of  their  graves  they 
were  mere  bodies  no  longer — no  longer  (jw/iata  merely,  but 
truly  aivd^uTioi,  persons,  living  men,  constituted  of  body  and 
soul,  as  they  were  before  they  died.  The  very  difficulty  of 
the  Professor,  therefore,  affords  a  singularly  strong  confirma- 
tion of  the  doctrine  which  he  opposes. 

It  is  amusing  to  see  howmuch  of  Professor  Bush's  length- 
ened detail  upon  this  passage  is  based  upon  these  asserted  dif- 
ficulties, I  he  existence  of  which  he  takes  for  granted,  as  well 
as  the  fact  that  they  admit  of  no  satisfactory  solution,  unless 
on  the  principles  of  his  theory.  He  also  quotes  "  Noble's 
Appeal,^''  pp.  64,  65,  in  which  that  writer  professes  to  find 
strong  proof  in  favour  of  Swedenborgianism,  from  the  fact 
that  no  one  can  tell  with  absolute  certainty  what  became  of 
the  raised  saints.  Such  lucubrations  are  unworthy  of  serious 
notice.  And  on  this  subject  the  Professor  remarks  that ''  To 
us  the  hypothesis  is  far  more  probable,  that  the  bodies  disap- 
peared immediately  upon  what  is  termed  their  '  rising,'  and 
were  seen  no  more ;  for  the  supposition  is  to  us  utterly  incre- 
dible that  these  material  bodies  were  the  objects  beheld  by 
those  to  whom  the  subsequent  appearance  was  made.  To 
the  objections  already  urged  against  the  supposition,  we  may 


264  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

add,  that  the  term  for  *  appeared,'  (Ivs^avbcs^aav)  is  the  pro- 
per term  for  the  manifestation  of  a  spiritual  being,  whether 
angel  or  departed  spirit.  This  indicates  that  they  were  seen 
in  vision,  and  not  with  the  natural  eye,  which  was  not  formed 
to  take  cognizance  of  spiritual  bodies.''''  pp.  213-215. 

The  *'  objections  already  urged  against  the  supposition," 
that  the  material  bodies  were  the  objects  of  vision  to  the  many 
to  whom  the  raised  saints  appeared,  are  those  already  noticed 
above;  and  the  reader  will  judge  for  himself  how  much 
weight  should  be  attached  to  them.  And  as  to  the  other  "  ob- 
jection" here  stated,  the  reader  may  also  judge  of  its  weight 
when  I  tell  him  that  the  Greek  word  referred  to  by  Professor 
Bush,  {Ifi^avi^ui,)  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament  just  ten 
times;  and  in  not  one  of  them  is  it  used  for  "  the  manifesta- 
tion of  a  spiritual  being,  whether  angel  or  departed  spirit,''"' 
In  our  text  such  a  meaning  is  clearly  out  of  the  question,  as 
CQjuar'a  itself  shows.  In  John  xiv.  21,  22,  and  Heb.  ix.  25, 
it  is  used  in  reference  to  Christ's  manifestation  of  himself  to 
his  people  after  his  resurrection,  and  also  to  his  appearing 
in  our  behalf  at  the  throne  of  God.  The  reader  may  turn 
to  the  other  instances  of  its  use,  which  are  as  follows :  Acts 
xxiii.  15.22,  and  xxiv.  1,  and  xxv.  2. 15  ;  Heb.  xi.  14.  Pro- 
fessor Bush  wished  to  prove  that  the  bodies  of  these  saints 
were  dissipated,  and  that  the  holy  city  in  which  they  appeared, 
was  not  the  earthly,  but  "  celestial  Jerusalem,"  p.  217,  and 
such  is  the  course  he  has  adopted,  by  which  to  gain  this 
point ! 

The  remainder  of  the  Professor's  remarks  on  Matt,  xxvii. 
50-53,  have  no  real  bearing  on  the  subject  under  discussion, 
and  therefore  we  pass  them  without  further  notice. 

SECTION  V. 

Examination  of  passages  in  John's  Gospel.    / 

I.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  Professor  Bush,  and  for- 
mally discussed  by  him  is  the  following: — "Marvel  not  at 
this:  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth;  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that 
have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  John 
V.  28,  29.  p.  234. 

Here  is  as  plain  and  emphatic  a  declaration  as  can  be 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  265 

made,  that  both  the  righteous  and  unrighteous  are  to  be  the 
subjects  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  also  that  the 
period  of  this  resurrection  was  still  future  when  Christ  uttered 
these  words.  Consequently  the  theory  that  denies  ihe  resur- 
rection of  the  wicked  is  false;  and  the  assertion  that  the  righ- 
teous who  had  died  before  this  time  had  entered  upon  the 
resurrection-state,  is  also  false.  Yet  our  author  is  in  no  wise 
discouraged  by  this  formidable  testimony,  but  proceeds,  with 
a  serious  effort  to  obviate  its  force. 

After  admitting  that  the  testimony  is  very  weighty;  and 
stating  that  if  he  knows  himself  he  "  would  deal  with  the 
profoundest  deference,  and  with  the  utmost  fairness,  with 
every  declaration  of  holy  writ,"  (a  point,  which,  one  would 
suppose,  ought  to  be  taken  for  granted  in  a  teacher  of  Chris- 
tian theology,)  he  prociseds  with  several  '*  suggestions,"  by 
the  aid  of  which  he  would  aim  to  reconcile  the  passage 
with  his  theory.  The  first  of  these  suggestions  is,  that  Christ 
"  for  the  most  part"  speaks  of  the  resurrection  "  as  the  dis- 
tinguishing privilege  and  prerogative  of  the  righteous :"  to 
prove  which  he  quotes  Luke  xx.  35,  36,  and  xiv.  12-14. 
But  if  this  were  even  so,  it  would  not  help  Professor  Bush, 
for  Christ  here  asserts  with  the  utmost  plainness  the  resur- 
rection of  the  unrighteous. 

His  second  suggestion  is  as  follows  : 

"  (2.)  The  passage,  as  understood  in  its  literal  import, 
does  certainly  encounter  the  force  of  that  cumulative  mass 
of  evidence,  built  upon  rational  and  philosophical  grounds, 
which  we  have  arrayed  against  any  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine that  would  imply  the  participation  of  the  body  in  that 
rising  again  which  is  predicated  of  the  dead.  We  do  not 
by  any  means  affirm  that  the  conclusions  from  that  source, 
to  which  we  have  come,  are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  coun- 
tervail the  rebutting  conclusion  which  may  be  formed  from 
the  present  passage.  All  we  would  say  is,  that  they  have 
weight,  and  consequently  we  are  not  required,  or  rather  are 
not  at  liberty,  at  once  to  dismiss  them,  as  a  kind  of  profane 
intruders  into  holy  ground,  where  even  the  '  daughter  of  a 
voice '  from  Reason  is  not  to  insinuate  itself  into  the  ears 
of  Faith.  We  confidently  re-affirm  our  position,  that  the 
human  mind  cannot  be  insensible  to  the  claims  of  the  argu- 
ments which  we  have  presented  in  the  form  of  rational  ob- 
jections to  the  views  of  the  resurrection  that  would  naturally 

23 


266       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

be  suggested  by  the  literal  reading  of  the  present  text." 
p.  235-6. 

This  passage  is  backed  by  a  note  containing  an  extract 
from  Mr.  Locke  in  which  he  contends  for  the  resurrection 
of  a  material  body,  but  denies  that  the  same  body  that  died 
will  arise;  (for  this  is  the  doctrine  contended  for  by  Mr. 
Locke  against  Stillingfleet;)  and  what  this  has  to  do  with 
Professor  Bush's  theory,  the  reader  will  determine  for  him- 
self. Locke  admits  that  a  body  is  raised  from  the  earth, 
and  this  our  author  utterly  denies.  Yet  Professor  Bush  and 
Mr.  Locke  are  willing  to  become  friends,  if  by  so  doing  this 
plain  testimony  of  our  Saviour  can  be  sacrificed. 

The  foregoing  *'  suggestion,"  however,  unfortunately  for 
the  Professor,  has  no  more  weight  than  the  first;  and  it  can 
lend  him  no  aid  in  disposing  of  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion. We  have  fully  demonstrated  that  his  "  argument  from 
reason"  is  not  worth  a  rush;  and  that  "that  cumulative 
mass  of  evidence,{\)  built  upon  rational  and  philosophical 
grounds,"  is  no  evidence  at  all,  and  has  not  the  weight  of  a 
feather  in  settling  the  question  before  us. 

On  the  next  page  he  follows  up  this  "  suggestion,"  with 
remarking  that  "  So  far  as  we  are  competent  to  form  a  judg- 
ment, the  evidence  from  reason  -preponderates  in  favour  of 
the  idea  of  the  immediate  entrance  at  death  upon  the  resur- 
rection-state. This  evidence  we  have  seen  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  testimony  of  a  multitude  of  passages  which  yield  this 
more  easily  and  naturally  than  any  other  sense."  Unfor- 
tunately for  our  author,  however,  this  statement  is  destitute 
of  the  least  confirmatory  evidence.  So  far  from  his  having 
produced  a  multitude  of  passages,  he  has  not  produced  a 
solitary  one^  ichich  yields  any  suck  sense  as  this!  He 
proceeds  as  follows:  "But  in  the  text  under  consideration, 
and  perhaps  a  few  others,  the  doctrine  of  a  future,  simul- 
taneous bodily  resurrection  seems  (!)  to  be  explicitly  taught. 
Here  then  we  are  reduced  to  a  new  dilemma.  The  charac- 
ter of  the  difficulty  is  changed.  It  is  not  so  much  now  a 
conflict  between  revelation  and  reason,  as  it  is  an  apparent 
conflict  between  one  part  of  revelation  and  another.''^  p. 
237.  Not  at  all.  Professor  Bush:  there  is  neither  a  new 
nor  an  old  dilemma.  There  is  no  conflict  between  true  philo- 
sophy or  reason,  and  revelation;  nor  is  there  any  between 
one  part  of  the  Bible  and  another  part.     All  this  is  base- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  267 

less  assumption;  no  facts  have  been  adduced  to  sustain  it. 
The  only  real  conflict  in  the  matter  is  between  Revelation 
and  Professor  Bush's  theory. 

The  Professor's  third  "  suggestion,"  is  a  formal  acceding 
to  Semler's  notorious  principle  of  "  accommodation,"  by  the 
aid  of  which  he  would  also  endeavour  to  obviate  the  diffi- 
culty presented  by  this  text.  But  neither  can  German  neology 
here  lend  our  author  any  aid,  as  we  have  fully  shown  in 
Part  II.,  chapter  I.,  above. 

Under  this  third  and  last  of  his  "  suggestions,"  he  also 
introduces  Dan.  xii.  2,  and  supposes  that  our  Saviour  had 
that  passage  in  mind  when  he  uttered  the  words  under  con- 
sideration: and  if  so,  even  the  Professor  must  admit,  that  the 
Prophet  also  announces  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  as 
well  as  of  the  righteous.  It  would  surely  be,  what  was  once 
called,  "  a  retrograde  improvement,^^  to  explain  what  is  clear 
and  obvious,  by  that  which  is  dark  and  difficult.* 

The  Professor  closes  his  remarks  on  this  passage  as  fol- 
lows: 

"  Even  framed  as  it  is,  the  declaration  may  be  understood 
to  yield  an  important  truth  in  accordance  with  the  view  we 
have  presented.  For  true  it  unquestionably  is,  that  all  those 
whose  bodies  are  consigned  to  the  sepulchre  emerge  from 
their  defunct  state,  in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  him  who  has 
the  keys  of  death  and  hell,  into  a  sphere  of  existence  where, 
according  to  their  works,  they  are  either  crowned  with  life 
everlasting,  or  doomed  to  a  judgment  of  wrath  without  end. 
If  this  be  intrinsically  true,  it  is  certain  that  our  Saviour's 
words  cannot  teach  the  contrary;  and  if  they  do  not  mean 
this,  they  must  mean  something  consistent  with  it.  If  the 
truth  is  not  to  be  harmonized  with  itself  in  this  way,  let  him 
who  can,  suggest  another  and  a  better."  pp.  240,  241. 

*  Professor  Bush  is  not  satisfied  with  only  adopting  the  creed  of 
the  German  Neologists  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection,  but  he 
avails  himself  of  their  very  arguments  and  expositions  of  Scripture. 
Dr.  Amtnon's  exposition  of  John  v.  21,  24,  28,  is  of  the  same  charac- 
ter as  the  Professor's ;  and  Hammer  replies  to  him  by  remarking, 
among  other  things,  that  "  The  supposition,  that  Christ  intended  to 
describe  the  moral  resurrection,  with  figures  drawn  from  Dan.  xii.  2, 
is  not  only  destitute  of  proof,  but  is  actually  improbable ;  for  there  is 
not  a  single  word  which  gives  the  least  intimation  of  such  an  allu- 
sion ;  moreover,  the  words  are  not  those  of  Daniel,  nor  is  Daniel,  in 
the  passage  to  which  we  refer,  at  all  speaking  of  a  moral  resur- 
rection." 


268       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

It  seems  to  be  rather  a  hard  case,  but  even  this  idea  fails 
to  afford  the  Professor  any  assistance.  To  say  nothing  of 
that  egregious  perversion  of  language,  by  which  a  Coming 
forth  out  of  the  grave  is  explained  to  mean  no  more  than 
*'  emerging  from  a  defunct  state"  before  the  body  is  con- 
signed to  the  sepulchre;  and  to  say  nothing  either  of  his 
making  bolh  the  righteous  and  wicked  alike  thus  emerge 
into  the  resurrection-state,  in  direct  contradiction  to  his 
theory,  which  denies  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked ;  the 
absurdity  of  the  foregoing  criticism  will  at  once  be  seen  by 
referring  to  the  fact,  that  our  Saviour  says  the  hour  is  com- 
ing,''^  «^;t«T'at»  in  which  this  event  will  take  place.  Surely, 
then,  it  had  not  already  occurred.  And,  therefore,  the  doc- 
trine that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  with  all  the  pious 
dead  who  were  in  their  graves  before  the  time  of  Christ, 
had  entered  upon  the  resurrection-state  at  death,  is  utterly 
false  and  unfounded, 

II.  The  next  passage  is  thus  quoted  by  Professor  Bush  : 

John  vi.  39,  40:  "And  this  is  the  Father's  will  which 
hath  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me,  I  should 
lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last  day. 
And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one 
which  seelh  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  ever- 
lasting life:  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  p.  241. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  construction  in  the  first  of 
these  verses  is  what  grammarians  style  imperfect,  ilav 
agrees  with  no  other  word,  and  stands  in  the  place  of  sx 
Ttavto^.  This  idiom  is  hebrseistic ;  as  rtdv  in  the  nomina- 
tive is  again  resumed  by  the  genitive  of  the  pronoun,  tl 
avTfov.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  article  (t^)  at  the 
close  of  each  of  the  verses  is  emphalic. 

Professor  Bush  commences  his  remarks  on  the  passage 
with  the  following  reference  to  the  important  phrase  therein 
twice  occurring^"  the  last  day.^"*  "  The  same  declaration 
in  substance  or  in  form  occurs,  v.  44,  54.  It  certainly  de- 
notes the  resurrection  of  those  who  believed  in  him,  and, 
according  to  the  letter,  a  resurrection  within  the  limits  of  a 
certain  period,  denominated  here  '  the  last  day.'  An  equiva- 
lent allusion  to  this  day  occurs  also,  chap.  xii.  48:  *  The 
word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  at  the 
last  day."*  That  the  expression  is  conformed  to  the  usual 
mode  in  which  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  was  spoken 
of  among  the  Jews,  is  also  unquestionable."     The  phrase  is 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  269 

certainly  an  important  one  in  this  connexion,  and  I  wish 
our  author  had  made  some  effort  here  to  explain  it.  He 
does  not,  however,  and  immediately  after  the  forequoted  re- 
mark, commences  with  another  application  of  the  neological 
principle  o[ accommodation:  expecting  thus  to  evade  the  tes- 
timony here  given  against  his  theory,  and  in  favour  of  a 
future  simultaneous  resurrection  and  judgment. 

Now  it  cannot  be  successfully  contested  that  the  phrase 
iax'^'^V  ^A*^'C»  which  is  here  employed,  and  translated  last 
day,  or  emphatically  "?Ae  last  day,"  is  a  phrase  equivalent 

to  x^iavi  (xeydKtjS  '^H'^^"'?   ^^   Jude  6;    and  vjfis^a  tii?  x^tcfawj   in 

Matt.  X.  15;  and  xi.  22,  24;  and  1  Jno.  iv.  17;  and  also  to 
the  Tjfii^a  Stxatox^Kjiaj  tov  ®eov  in  Rom.  ii.  5;  and  to  sxelvfj 
i^lj^B^a  of  Matt.  vii.  22;  and  vj^s^a  Ku^t'ov  in  1  Thess.  v.  2; 
and  also  yjfxi^a  ^Irjaov  X^Kjfov  in  Phil.  i.  6 ;  and  1  Cor.  i.  8 : 
as  also  to  the  phrase  awteuia  tov  atwvoj  as  used  in  Matt, 
xiii.  39,  40,  49,  &c.  Compare  also  the  expressions  -^  artoxd- 
jiv^'s  Tfov  xv^Covi  rj  rta^ovaia,  &c.  &c.,  in  2  Thess.  i.  7 ;  1  Cor. 
i.  7;  and  iii.  13;  and  1  Tim.  vi.  14;  and  2  Tim.  iv.  1;  and 
Tit.  ii.  13;  2  Thess.  ii.  8;  and  1  Cor.  xv.  23;  and  1  Jno. 
ii.  28;  2  Pet.  iii.  12,  &c.  All  these  expressions  clearly 
refer  to  one  and  the  same  period,  or  crisis  in  the  world's 
history,  as  the  reader  will  see  by  turning  to  the  references, 
and  noticing  in  what  connexion  the  phrases  are  found. 

The  events  which  are  to  transpire  on  this  day  are  also 
clearly  stated,  and  they  are  all  declared  to  be  yet  future. 
"  God  has  appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  {fiiTCkBo 
x^Cvsiv)  the  world  in  righteousness,"  &c.  Acts  xvii.  31.  A 
number  of  the  preceding  references  likewise  inculcate  the 
same  doctrine.  See  also  1  Cor.  iv.  5.  It  is  called  also  "  the 
day  of  wrath,"  vj/xi^a  6^y^?,  a  statement  wholly  irreconcileable 
with  the  doctrine  of  Professor  Bush,  that  the  present  merci- 
ful dispensation  of  the  Gospel,  is  the  day  of  judgment.  Rom. 
ii.  5.  At  this  time  also  the  dead  are  to  be  raised;  (See  the 
passage  under  discussion ;  and  v.  44,  and  54 ;  see  also  1  Cor. 
XV.  23,  and  passim;  and  1  Thess.  iv.  16;  Jude  14;  Rev. 
i.-7.)  All  mankind  are  then  to  be  judged,  the  dead  and  the 
living,  both  small  and  great.  Matt.  xi.  22,  24;  2  Cor.  v.  10; 
Rev.  XX.  &c. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  above  quoted  irom  the 
"  Anastasis,"  our  author  proceeds  to  refer  to  the  accommoda- 
tion principle  to  help  him  out  of  his  difficulties.     And  he 

23* 


270       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

makes  also  a  long  quotation  from  a  book  called  "  Chandler^s 
Vindication,''^  asserting  the  same  principle.  But  this  prin- 
ciple we  have  already  sufficiently  exploded,  and  shall  not  dis- 
cuss it  in  connexion  with  every  text  in  the  consideration  of 
which  Professor  Bush  chooses  to  introduce  it.  And  so  far  as 
his  reference  to  it  here  is  concerned,  it  can  afford  him  no  as- 
sistance whatever. 

On  p.  244,  however,  he  makes  an  effort  to  justify  his  adop- 
tion of  this  neological  principle  in  the  following  words : 

*'  When  our  Saviour,  for  instance,  says,  Matt.  xii.  27,  *  If 
I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do  your  children 
cast  them  out?'  are  we  to  suppose  that  he  intended  to  sanc- 
tion the  common  belief,  that  such  exorcisms  were  actually 
performed  at  that  time  by  others  than  his  own  disciples  ?  The 
conceit  was  rife  among  the  people  that  such  was  indeed  the 
case,  and  our  Lord  simply  adopted  the  argument  ex  concessis, 
without  intimating  whether  the  popular  belief  had  a  ground 
or  not.*  The  same  remark  applies  to  a  subsequent  part  of 
the  same  conversation,  where  he  speaks  of  an  evil  spirit 
going  out  of  a  man,  wandering  over  waste  and  dry  places, 
and  finally  returning  reinforced  by  a  company  of  other  spi- 
rits worse  than  himself,  and  taking  possession  of  his  old  habi- 
tation. This  surely  does  not  imply  the  absolute  truth  of  such 
a  representation,  but  is  merely  a  specimen  of  his  adapting 
his  teachings  to  prevalent  ideas." 

But  the  Professor  is  quite  unfortunate  in  his  illustrations 
of  this  principle.  So  far  as  Matt.  xii.  27  is  concerned,  Christ 
does  plainly  assert  the  fact  that  "such  exorcisms  were  actu- 
ally performed  at  that  time  by  others  than  his  own  disciples." 
If  the  Professor  had  turned  to  Mark  ix.  38-40,  he  would  have 
met  a  case  in  point. — "  And  John  answered  him,  saying. 
Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  he 
followeth  not  us :  and  we  forbad  him,  because  he  followeth 
not  us.  But  Jesus  said,  Forbid  him  not:  for  there  is  no  man 
which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  speak 
evil  of  me."  See  also  Luke  ix.  49.  Here  was  a  man  who 
did  the  very  thing  in  question,  and  yet  followed  not  with  the 
disciples  of  Christ.     And  Christ  himself  admitted  the  reality 

*  The  Professor  here  quotes  Mr.  Barnes  in  a  note,  as  saying-,  "  The 
words  of  Christ  here  do  not  prove  that  they  had  actually  the  power  of 
casting  out  devils,  but  only  that  they  claimed  it,  and  practised  magic 
or  JugS^^'^y^''^  (Notes  on  Matt.  xii.  27,)  a  sentiment  uncalled  for  and 
unwarrantable. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  271 

of  the  performance,  and  called  it  a  miracle,  ^vm/tej.  He 
admits  the  same  thing  also  in  reference  to  many  : — "  Many- 
will  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord !  Lord  !  have  we  not  pro- 
phesied  in  thy  name?  and  in  thy  name  cast  out  devils?  and 
in  thy  name  done  many  wonderful  works  ?  (miracles,  8vvd- 
/if  tj.)  And  then  will  I  profess  imto  them,  I  never  knew  you  : 
depart  from  me  ye  that  wo?'k  iniquity  /"  Matt.  vii.  22,  23. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  accommodation  here  to  the  erroneous 
views  of  the  Jews ;  and  of  course  nothing  to  justify  the  Pro- 
fessor's application  of  that  principle  in  evading  the  difficulty 
which  the  text  under  consideration  places  in  the  way  of  his 
theory. 

Nor  is  our  author  more  fortunate  in  his  reference  to  the  re- 
lapsing demoniac  of  which  he  speaks.  See  Matt.  xii.  43-45. 
The  passage  is  no  doubt  a  parable,  but  founded  in  actual  truth, 
as  our  Lord's  parables  uniformly  were.  And  as  this  case  is 
always  referred  to  by  the  advocates  of  the  principle  of  accom- 
modation, in  justification  of  that  principle,  it  will  be  in  place 
here  to  offer  a  few  remarks  upon  it. 

The  immediate  occasion  of  our  Lord's  introducing  this 
parable  was  his  having  cured  a  demoniac.  (See  Mark  iii, 
19-21,  in  connexion  wifh  Matt.  xii.  22.)  The  multitude 
around  were  amiazed  at  his  exhibition  of  power  over  the 
spirits  of  darkness,  and  exclaimed  "  Is  not  this  the  Son  of 
David  ?"  But  when  the  Pharisees  heard  it  they  exclaimed, 
"  He  hath  Beelzebub— this  fellow  doth  not  cast  out  devils  but 
by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  the  devils."  This  charge  Jesus 
refutes  by  showing  that  Satan  could  not  contend  against  him- 
self ^v.  25,  26.)  And  then  reasoning  from  the  truth  which 
the  Jews  themselves  admitted,  that  demons  could  be  cast  out 
(v.  27),  he  shows  (v.  28),  that  this  action  of  his  in  thus  ex- 
pelling the  demon,  proved  that  the  Messiah  was  among  them 
— and  that  of  course  he  himself  was  the  Messiah.  It  also 
evinced,  (as  he  proved,  v.  29,)  that  he  was  more  powerful 
than  Satan,  and  so  far  from  being  in  confederacy  with  him, 
was  truly  his  enemy,  (v.  30.) 

He  then  gives  them  the  awful  admonition  (contained  in 
verses  31,  32,)  respecting  their  guilt  in  ascribing  the  works 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  diabolical  agency:  assuring  them 
that  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  (of  which  this  was 
a  marked  example,)  would  never  be  forgiven.  And  he  con- 
cludes the  address  with  assuring  them  that  they  must  give 
an  account  of  their  words  at  the  day  of  judgment. 


272  THE  RESURRECTION  OJP  THE  BODY 

It  was  then  that  certain  Soribes.  and  Pharisees  said  "  Mas- 
ter, we  would  see  a  sign  from  thee!"  That  is,  an  evidence 
that  you  are  the  Messiah  whom  you  claim,  to  be:  by  which 
they  insinuated  that  casting  out  demons  was  not  a  sufficient 
evidence,  as  others  did  the  like;  refusing  to  acknowledge, 
however,  that  whenever  they  .were  truly  cast  out  it  was 
always  in  the  name  of  Christ;  so  that  when  others  did  it,  it 
was  still  a  proof  of  his  Messiahship.*  Hence  he  reproves 
the  unbelieving  spirit  which  dictated  this  request,  and  re- 
marks that  the  men  of  Nineveh  and  the  Queen  of  the  South, 
should,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  condemn  that  guilty  race 
for  refusing  to  believe  the  evidence  which  his  works  afforded 
of  his  being  a  greater  than  either  Jonas  or  Solomon.  He 
then  in  continuation  of  his  remarks,  introduces  the  parable 
under  consideration,  and  applies  it  by  saying  "  Even  so  shall 
it  be  also  unto  this  icicked  generation.''''  (Comp.  Matt.  xii. 
22-45;  Mark  iii.  19-30;  and  Luke  ii.  14-36.)  The  plain 
meaning  of  which  is,  '  You  go  on  to  disbelieve  and  to  deride 
me  and  my  works;  suffering  yourselves  herein  to  be  led 
astray  by  the  Devil,  under  whose  influence  you  will  con- 
tinue until  you  finally  perish.' 

John,  by  his  preaching,  and  Christ,  by  his  preaching  and 
miracles,  had  freed,  as  it  were,  that  unhappy  people  from 
the  influence  of  the  Devil,  and  led  them  to  the  very  door  of 
eternal  life.  But  by  giving  way  again  to  Satanic  influence 
he  had  returned  upon  them  with  greater  force  than  ever, 
and  would  now  precipitate  them  to  perdition. 

The  simile  in  the  parable  is  taken  from  the  case  of  a 
demoniac,  from  whom  the  demon  had  gone  out.  This 
demon  passes  through  dry  places,  {pi  avvB^uv  fortcov,)  seek- 
ing another  resting  place  among  those  poor  creatures  who 
dwelt  in  caves,  or  among  rocks  and  tombs.  But  finding  no 
subject  to  occupy  he  returns  to  his  former  habitation — the 
poor  wretch  out  of  whom  he  had  departed:  and  finding  this 
seat  still  unoccupied  either  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  by  an 
unclean  spirit  like  himself;  and  fearing  that  the  power  that 
ejected  him  might  still  be  present  and  prevent  his  re-entrance, 
he  goes  and  takes  with  him  a  number  of  other  spirits  like 
himself,  and  sufficient,  as  he  hopes  to  withstand  any  effort 
to  eject  him  hereafter;  and  they  going  in  dwell  there. 

*  "  //I  the  name  of  Christ^''^  was  the  formula  used  by  others,  as 
above  shown,  see  Mark  ix.  38-40 ;  Luke  ix.  49,  50 ;  Matt.  vii.  22,  23. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  273 

The  obscurity  in  the  phrase  "  he  findeth  it  empty,  sweptj 
and  garnished,'^  is  removed  by  recolleciing  that  it  is  a  Jew- 
ish phrase  or  idiom,  and  means  no  more  than  that  he  found 
it  furnished  for  an  inhabitant:  "swept  and  garnished,"  but 
still  "empty,"  i.  e.  destitute  of  one.  Whereupon  he  pro- 
ceeds to  enter  it  anew. 

The  allegory  is  intended,  therefore,  to  describe  the  dread- 
ful state  of  the  Jews.  Nor  can  Professor  Bush  produce  a 
particle  of  proof  to  show  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  fact  in 
every  part  of  the  representation.  The  Jews  may  have  had 
such  ideas  before,  respecting  evil  spirits ;  and  again,  they 
may  have  had  no  such  ideas  until  communicated  by  Christ. 
But  until  the  advocates  of  the  principle  of  accommodation 
produce  some  proof  to  justify  their  so  doing,  it  is  perfectly 
nugatory  for  them  to  adduce  this  passage  as  an  instance  of 
the  Saviour's  accommodating  his  teaching  to  the  erroneous 
notions  of  the  Jews. 

Professor  Bush  next  remarks  that  the  Jews  employed  a 
variety  of  terms  (such  as  spirit,  soul,  heaven,  hell,  world, 
*  world  to  come,'  '  end  of  the  world,'  &c.)  doubtless  in  an 
erroneous  sense:  and  that  the  Saviour  employed  them  "with- 
out intimating  that  he  did  it  in  any  other  than  the  common 
acceptation."  And  on  the  strength  of  this  most  shameful 
assertion,  he  says,  "  So  in  the  present  case  we  rest  in  the 
conclusion.  That  our  Lord  spake  on  the  subject  of  the  resur- 
rection in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  the  diction  then 
prevalent,  and  that  his  words  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
criterion  of  the  absolute  truth  of  the  current  doctrine^ 
pp.  244,  245.  And  in  this  way  does  Professor  Bush  prefer 
to  get  rid  of  the  explicit  testimony  of  our  adorable  Redeemer, 
rather  than  to  resign  the  paltry  theory  which  he  has  arrayed 
against  his  teaching.  More  barefaced  infidelity  cannot  be 
found  in  the  whole  of  Tindal's  deistical  work,  called  '■'•  Chris- 
tianity as  old  as  the  Creation.'''' 

III.  The  next  passage  adduced  by  our  author  is  John  xi. 
21-26.  "  Then  Martha  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  if  thou  hadst 
been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.  But  I  know  that  even 
now,  whatsoever  thou  wilt  ask  of  God,  God  will  give  it  thee. 
Jesus  saith  unto  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again.  Martha 
saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resur- 
rection at  the  last  day.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  I  am  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life:  he  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were 


274      THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

dead,  yet  shall  he  live:  and  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth 
in  me  shall  never  die.     Believest  thou  this?"  p.  246. 

The  doctrine  of  a  simultaneous  resurrection  at  the  last 
day,  is  here  very  clearly  announced.  If  the  reader,  how- 
ever, would  like  to  know  how  Professor  Bush  regards  it,  he 
can  read  his  exposition  as  follows. 

"  This  is  a  passage  of  similar  import  with  the  preceding, 
and  is  to  be  construed  on  the  same  principle.  The  words 
of  Martha  evince  that  she  merely  echoed  the  general  senti- 
ment of  the  age,  and  perhaps  of  former  ages,  in  declaring 
the  expectation  that  her  brother  would  rise  at  the  last  day. 
Our  Lord  does  not,  indeed,  in  so  many  words  assure  her 
that  her  belief  was  founded  upon  an  incorrect  view  of  the 
truth;  at  the  same  time,  upon  a  closer  view  of  the  Saviour's 
language,  we  cannot  easily  resist  the  impression,  that  he 
actually  designed  to  correct  something  that  was  erroneous, 
or  at  least  inadequate,  in  her  belief.  On  any  other  supposi- 
tion let  us  see  how  the  discourse  proceeds.  Martha  tells 
Jesus  that  she  has  no  doubt  that  her  brother  will  rise  at  the 
last  day;  and  he,  admitting  and  approving  the  sentiment, 
replies,  '  I  am  the  resurrection  and  ihe  life,'  intimating,  on 
this  construction,  that  what  she  said  was  very  true,  that  at 
the  last  day  he  should  raise  her  brother  to  an  immortal  life. 
He  then  proceeds,  advancing  in  some  way  upon  what  he  had 
just  said,  and  informs  her  that  all  dead  Christians  shall  live 
again,  and  that  no  living  Christian  shall  die  for  ever.  But 
upon  this  view  of  the  passage,  what  has  he  said  hut  what 
Martha  had  already  told  him  that  she  kneic?  For  surely, 
if  she  knew  that  Lazarus  should  rise  again  at  the  last  day, 
she  must,  upon  the  same  grounds,  have  known  that  every 
deceased  Christian  would  also  rise  at  the  last  day,  and  that 
no  living  Christian  would  die  for  ever.  This  sense  seems,  in 
fact,  to  be  precluded  by  the  question  which  Christ  imme- 
diately proposes,  '  Believest  thou  this?'  Can  we  suppose  he 
would  spend  so  many  words  to  tell  Martha  what  she  already 
knew,  and  then,  after  all,  ask  her  whether  she  believed  this?" 
pp.  246,  247. 

But  this  view  the  Professor  dismisses  as  unsatisfactory, 
and  proposes  the  following. 

"  The  following,  then,  we  conceive,  to  be  a  much  juster 
interpretation.  Our  Lord  really  designs,  by  imparting  to 
her  the  true  nature  of  the  resurrection,  to  inform  her,  also, 
that  that '  last  day,  which  she  was  expecting,  had  even  now 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  275 

in  effect  come,  and,  therefore,  that  there  was  no  reason  why- 
she  should  give  way  to  sorrow,  or  even  despair  of  having 
her  brother  restored  to  her.  He  tells  her,  *  He  that  believeth 
in  me,  though  he  should  die,  as  your  brother  now  seems  to 
have  done,  yet,  in  fact,  it  is  little  more  than  an  illusion  on 
the  senses ;  he  still  lives  to  every  high  and  real  purpose  of 
existence.  Nor  is  this  all ;  every  living  man  that  believes 
in  me  shall,  in  fact,  never  die.  Although,  indeed,  he  may- 
be called  in  God's  time,  to  put  off  the  mortal  body,  and 
though  you  may  call  this  death,  yet,  in  truth,  it  is  a  change 
scarcely  worth  the  name.  Of  his  conscious,  active,  and 
happy  being  there  is  no  interruption  at  all  for  ever.  If 
such,  then,  be  the  true  state  of  the  case  in  regard  to  de- 
parted believers — if  they  really  emerge  in  full  life  and  con- 
sciousness from  the  dying  body  into  the  resurrection-state 
— why  imagine  the  resurrection  to  be  deferred  to  some  dis- 
tant future  period,  called  the  Mast  day?'  Believest  thou, 
Martha,  what  I  say?  If  so,  you  perceive  you  have  little 
occasion  to  grieve  for  your  deceased  brother;  nevertheless, 
as  the  mere  reanimation  of  the  lifeless  corpse  is  a  compara- 
tively trifling  work  of  Omnipotence,  ^  your  brother  shall 
rise  again.''  Here,  doubtless,  was  much  new  and  impor- 
tant doctrine,  in  regard  to  which  it  might,  very  properly,  be 
asked  of  Martha,  '  Believest  thou  this?'  "  pp.  247,  248. 

Such  is  the  criticism  of  our  author  on  this  important  pas- 
sage; and  thus  would  he  first  set  aside  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  passage,  and  then  establish  his  own  exposition  of  it. 
We  shall  follow  him  in  each  of  these  attempts. 

With  respect  to  the  first  particular,  he  has  egregiously 
failed  in  his  attempt  to  present  the  obvious  and  ordinary 
view  of  the  passage;  and,  as  he  has  based  his  rejection  of 
this  view  upon  this  very  mistake  of  his,  it  is  plain  that  his 
reasons  for  rejecting  it  amount  to  nothing.  Our  Lord  does 
not  assure  her,  in  so  many  words,  says  he,  that  her  belief 
was  founded  upon  an  incorrect  view  of  the  truth ;  (but 
why  should  he,  if  he  "  accommodated"  himself  to  her  er- 
rors?) but  yet  we  cannot  easily  resist  the  impression,  that 
he  designed  to  correct  something  erroneous  or  inadequate  in 
her  belief.  This  may  have  been  so  to  some  extent;  yet  not 
in  the  sense  pretended  by  Professor  Bush.  Martha,  like  the 
rest  of  our  Lord's  followers,  doubtless  had  an  inadequate 
view  of  his  character  and  mission.  Hence  our  Lord  intro- 
duces this  very  point  directly  to  her  in  this  conversation. 


276       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

But,  says  Professor  Bush,  upon  the  view  of  the  passage, 
that  Christ  here  informs  Martha  that  all  dead  Christians 
shall  live  again,  what  has  he  said  but  what  Martha  had 
already  told  him  that  she  knew?  "For  surely  she  knew 
that  Lazarus  would  rise  again  at  the  last  day,"  and,  of 
course,  that  all  oiher  "  deceased  Christians  would  also  rise 
at  the  last  day."  We  thank  Professor  Bush  for  this  full 
admission,  that  such  was  the  belief  of  Martha,  and,  by 
consequence,  of  the  rest  of  our  Saviour's  followers.  But 
yet  he  has  failed  to  present  the  import  of  our  Saviour's 
questions,  "  Believest  thou  this  ?" — a  point  upon  which,  as 
Professor  Bush  has  presented  the  matter,  the  whole  subject 
turns.  Christ  does  not  ask,  "  Believest  thou  that  the  righ- 
teous dead  will  hereafter  be  raised  at  the  last  day?"  This, 
Martha  had  told  him  that  she  believed :  but  he  asks  her, 
"  Believest  thou  that  /  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life ;" 
and  that  the  resurrection,  at  the  last  day,  is  so  connected 
with  me  as  the  Saviour,  "  that  whosoever  believeth  in  me 
though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live" — live,  and  never 
die?  "Believest  thou  this?"  A  mere  glance  at  the  text 
will  show  any  one  that,  this  is  the  import  of  our  Saviour's 
question:  and  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  an  intelligent 
man  could  mistake  it.  The  answer  of  Martha  itself,  which 
is  given  in  the  next  verse,  (and  ought  to  have  been  quoted 
by  Professor  Bush,  as  it  is  the  last  verse  of  the  paragraph, 
as  well  as  the  answer  to  the  question,)  clearly  evinces  also 
what  was  the  import  of  the  query.  She  does  not  say, 
"Yea,  Lord,  I  believe  that  the  dead  shall  arise" — but  "Yea, 
Lord  ;  /  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christy  the  Son  of  God^ 
who  should  come,  into  the  world  P''  vdr.  27.  Our  author's 
rejection  of  the  common  view,  therefore,  being  based  upon 
a  total  and  unaccountable  misapprehension  of  the  import  of 
the  passage,  can  avail  nothing;  and  the  passage,  as  thus  in- 
terpreted, must  continue  to  utter  a  solemn  testimony  against 
the  ruinous  errors  of  his  theory. 

But  the  Professor  was  hard  put  to  it,  for  he  must,  of 
course,  make  a  show  of  rejecting  the  foregoing  and  obvious 
explanation,  before  he  could,  with  any  appearance  of  pro- 
priety, propose  the  one  which  might  be  more  favourable  to 
his  principles.  Hence,  after  rejecting  it,  he  oftbrs  what  he 
conceives  to  be  "  a  much  juster  interpretation."  And  this 
interpretation  the  Professor  would  have  to  be,  that  Christ 
teaches  Martha  that  the  resurrection  takes  place  at  death; 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  277 

and  that  hence  Lazarus  had  "  really  emerged  in  full  life  and 
consciousness  from  the  dying  body  into  the  resurrection- 
state;"  "a  change,"  from  the  present  state  of  being, 
"  scarcely  worth  the  name  of  death."  Now  the  reader 
will  please  to  take  notice,  that  all  this  occurred  before  the 
resurrection  of  Christ;  "and  it  behooved  not,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  (p.  217,)  "  that  the  resurrection  of  the  mefnhers 
should  precede  that  of  the  Head.''''  And  yet  the  Professor 
would  have  it,  that  Christ  is  here  teaching  Martha,  that 
the  resurrection  of  the  members  did  precede  that  of  the 
Head  !  Surely  this  is  but  a  poor  illustration  of  the  truth  of 
"  the  doctrine  of  correspondencies." 

And  then  again,  in  the  23d  verse,  *';Jesus  saith  to  her.  Thy 
brother  shall  rise  again,"  {h.va.atyiat'to.v  o  dfif^^oj  cjov.)  This  is 
fatal  to  this  "  much  juster  interpretation"  of  the  Professor; 
for  if  he  had  already  entered  the  resurrection-state,  and 
Christ  intended,  as  our  author  asserts,  to  teach  Martha  this 
fact,  it  needs  no  words  to  show  that  he  would  hardly  have 
used  an  expression  which  asserted  that  he  had  not  yet  arisen. 
It  is  true,  doubtless,  that  by  this  expression,  our  Saviour 
meant  that  he  should  be  again  raised  to  life  by  an  union  of 
soul  and  body;  but  this  concession  Professor  Bush  cannot 
avail  himself  of,  while  he  maintains  that  Christ  was  here 
teaching  Martha  that  the  resurrection  took  place  at  death,  at 
which  time  he  "  really  emerged  into  full  life  and  conscious- 
ness." 

The  exposition  of  the  Professor  also  involves  the  idea  that, 
as  Lazarus  had  already  truly  arisen  from  the  dead  in  a 
spiritual  body,  he  must  have  either  left  that  body  behind 
him  when  he  united  again  with  his  material  body,  or  have 
brought  it  with  him,  and  entered  his  material  body  with  his 
"  refined,  setherial,  resurrection  body."  And  surely,  if  he 
could  do  this,  others  may  do  it  likewise.  And  therefore,  on 
the  Professor's  own  principles,  there  is  after  all,  no  absurdity 
in  a  spiritual  body  becoming  reunited  with  a  material.  And 
provided  the  material  body  is  adapted  to  spiritual  uses,  as  it 
will  be  at  the  resurrection  in  the  last  day,  there  can  be  there- 
fore no  absurdity  in  the  spiritual  body  uniting  with  it  again. 
So  that  if  the  Professor's  exposition  be  not  retained,  the  pas- 
sage is  fatal  to  his  theory;  and  if  it  is  retained,  it  is  ruinous 
to  his  "  argument  from  reason,"  and  to  his  philosophy.  The 
Professor  might  well  remark  that  such  an  exposition  would 
contain  "much  new  doctrine"  to  Martha;  and  the  query 

24 


278       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

might  well  be  propounded  to  others  besides  her,  "  Believest 
thou  this?" 

The  reply  of  Martha  to  the  Saviour's  question,  is  also 
fatal  to  this  "  much  juster  exposition"  of  Professor  Bush. 
She  does  not  answer  any  question  that  he  makes  the  Lord 
to  propose  to  her:  but  simply  replies  that  she  believes  in  his 
Messiahship.  And  the  plain  and  irresistible  inference  is 
that  therefore  no  such  questions  were  propounded  to  her. 
Had  our  author  honestly  quoted  the  reply  of  Martha,  as  he 
should  have  done,  the  reader  could  at  a  glance  have  dis- 
covered the  absurdity  of  this  "  much  juster  exposition." 

But  Professor  Bush  does  not  seem  satisfied,  after  all,  with 
his  own  exposition:  and  hence  he  cannot  conclude  without 
again  calling  to  his  aid  "  the  cumulative  mass  nfemdence'''  so 
often  referred  to  already,  and  from  which  he  concludes  that 
"  if,  as  we  have  endeavoured  to  show,  the  general  tenor  of 
Scripture  is  adverse  to  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  so  long 
delayed,  the  true  sense  of  the  Saviour's  language  cannot 
hear  that  interpretation.^''  p.  249.  "  TjT,"  is  sometimes  an 
important  word,  though  a  little  one;  and  it  is  certainly  true 
that  if  Professor  Bush's  arguments  and  expositions  are 
sound,  his  theory  must  be  true:  but  alas!  they  are  unsound 
and  at  direct  variance  with  Scripture  and  true  philosophy, 
and,  therefore,  his  theory  is  a  mere  castle  built  in  the  air — 
or  an  Aladdin's  palace,  which,  without  the  aid  of  a  genie, 
may  be  transported  whole  into  the  land  of  dreams. 

SECTION  VI. 

Examination  of  passages  in  Acts. 

I.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  Professor  Bush,  is  Acts  ii. 
29-35: 

"  Men  and  brethren,  let  me  freely  speak  unto  you  of  the 
patriarch  David,  that  he  is  both  dead  and  buried,  and  his 
sepulchre  is  with  us  unto  this  day.  Therefore  being  a  pro- 
phet, and  knowing  that  God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him, 
that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would 
raise  up  Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne;  He  seeing  this  before, 
spake  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  his  soul  was  not  left 
in  hell,  neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption.  This  Jesus 
hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  all  witnesses.  There- 
fore being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having 
received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  279 

hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.  For 
David  is  not  ascended  into  the  heavens,  but  he  saith  of  him- 
self, The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand,  until  I  make  thy  foes  thy  footstool." 

The  assertion  (with  which  Professor  Bush  begins  his  re- 
marks on  this  passage,)  that  "  ascended "  (avtSrj)  in  ver. 
34,  here  means  "  exalted  in  the  heavens,  in  the  sense  in 
which  Peter  is  here  speaking  of  the  Messiah,"  i.  e.  "  a  glori- 
ous exaltation,  or  ascension  and  session  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,"  is  an  idea  that  will  not  stand  any  serious  examination. 
The  single  and  primary  meaning  of  the  verb  is  to  ascend: 
as  e.  g.  when  the  Jews  were  said  to  go  vp  to  Jerusalem, 
Matt.  XX.  18,  and  John  xii.  20.  And,  then,  where  the  phrase 
*'  to  ascend  into  heaven  "  is  employed,  either  in  the  New 
Testament  or  theLXX.,  it  in  no  instance  means  to  he  glori- 
ously  exalted  in  heaven:  and  if  such  an  idea  is  found  in  the 
connexion,  it  is  not  in  the  word  itself  but  in  other  terms  used 
along  with  it.  See  John  iii.  13,  and  xx.  17;  Rom.  x.  6;  Eph. 
iv.  8-10;  Rev.  iv.  1.  Even  John  vi.  62,  in  no  sense  means 
exaltation,  but  a  mere  return  or  ascension  to  a  situation  pre- 
viously occupied.  See  also  Deut.  xxx.  12;  Ps.  cxxxix.  8; 
Prov.  xxx.  4;  Isaiah  xiv.  13,  14;  Jer.  li.  53;  Tobit  xii.  20, 
&c.,  &c.  The  criticism  therefore  is  unfounded.  And  though 
Mr.  Barnes  is  quoted  by  the  Professor  as  sustaining  his  ex- 
position ;  yet  it  is  plain  that  he  was  led  to  adopt  it  by  a 
supposed  theological  difficulty,  rather  than  by  a  thorough 
grammatical  investigation  of  the  passage.  And  yet,  upon 
this  erroneous  rendering  of  the  word.  Professor  Bush  has 
based  the  whole  of  his  attempt  to  explain  away  the  clear 
announcement  that  as  David's  sepulchre,  (which  contained 
his  body,)  was  still  in  Jerusalem,  so  it  was  clear  that  he  had 
not  arisen  from  the  dead,  and  of  course  had  not  ascended 
into  heaven  as  Messiah,  but  must,  (according  to  prophecy,) 
after  his  resurrection.  David's  unopened  sepulchre  proved 
that /t?'*  body  was  still  under  the  dominion  of  corruption:  and 
Peter  denies  that  he  had  as  yet  arisen  from  the  dead. 

The  first  verse  of  the  passage  also  proves  the  falseness  of 
the  doctrine  of  Professor  Bush :  for  Peter  here  asserts  of 
*'  David  that  he  is  both  dead  and  buried."  But  in  no  sense 
of  the  word  could  this  be  true  if  he  had  been  already  raised 
from  the  dead,  as  Professor  Bush  would  have  him  to  be. 
There  can  be  no  more  preposterous  contradiction  than  to 
say  that  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  person  is  dead  and 


280  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

buried  and  raised  from  the  dead  and  entered  upon  the  resur- 
rection-state. Professor  Bush  must  cease  laughing  at  the 
Romish  doctors'  profound  discussion  of  the  question,  whether 
a  thing  can  be  in  two  places  at  one  and  the  same  time. 

In  the  same  paragraph  also,  from  which  our  author  makes 
this  quotation,  there  is  another  passage  which  is  equally  de- 
structive of  his  theory.  "  Him  (i.  e.  Christ)  ye  have  taken 
and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain:  whom  God 
hath  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death:  because 
it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  not  be  holden  of  it.''''  vers. 
23,  24.  Christ  arose,  says  Professor  Bush,  in  a  spiritual 
body;  and  his  material  body  never  arose.  But  it  is  plain 
that  the  spiritual  or  resurrection-body  can  in  no  sense  be 
under  the  dominion  of  death.  And  yet  that  which  was  slain, 
is  here  said  to  have  been  raised  up  by  God ;  and  it  is  also 
said  that  this  raising  up  (after  the  period  of  three  days,)  was 
by  loosing  the  pains  (or  bands)  of  death,  because  it  was 
not  possible  that  death  should  hold  him.  The  assertion, 
therefore,  that  Christ  arose  in  a  spiritual  body  is  false. 

Professor  Bush,  in  carrying  out  his  erroneous  observation 
respecting  the  import  of  the  word  "  ascend,"  remarks  that 
"  the  apostle  certainly  did  not  mean  to  say  that  that  which 
constituted  the  actual  and  essential  ipseity  or  selfhood  of 
David,  was  then  reposing  in  the  sepulchre  at  Jerusalem." 
(p.  251.)  True,  he  may  not  have  meant  to  say  so :  but  much 
less  does  he  say  that  his  "  ipseity  or  selfhood,^^  (if  I  may 
be  pardoned  the  use  of  these  barbarisms,)  had  entered  upon 
the  resurrection-state;  or  had  been  raised  from  the  dead. 
Nor  does  he  intend  to  say  that  the  soul  of  David  had  not 
ascended  into  heaven:  but  simply  that  David  had  not.  The 
soul  of  David  is  not  David  himself;  and  neither  is  his  body 
David.  But  soul  and  body  united  constitute  David.  And 
David,  soul  and  body  had  not  ascended  into  heaven, 
though  his  soul  might  have  done  so.  And  hence  the  proof 
that  Peter  gave  that  David  had  not  ascended  into  heaven, 
was  that  he  had  not  yet  arisen  from  the  dead ;  his  body  yet 
saw  corruption.  This  same  argument  applies,  to  show  the 
erroneousness  of  Professor  Bush's  exposition.  For  if  David 
liad  arisen  from  the  dead,  he  would  have  ascended  into 
heaven ;  but  he  had  not  ascended,  and  therefore  he  had  not 
arisen  from  the  dead.  This  passage,  therefore,  must  still 
stand  as  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  Professor 
Bush's  theory. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  281 

II.  The  next  passage  presented  by  the  Professor  is  the 
following: 

Acts  xxiv.  14,  15:  "But  this  I  confess  unto  thee,  that 
after  the  way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God 
of  my  fathers,  believing  all  things  which  are  written  in  the 
law  and  in  the  prophets:  And  have  hope  toward  God, 
which  they  themselves  also  allow,  that  there  shall  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just,  find  the  un- 
just." 

Here  is  a  plain  statement  not  only  that  Paul  believed  and 
taught  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  (that 
is,  of  those  who  were  dead  at  the  time  in  which  he  spoke 
these  words,  as  well  as  those  who  should  die  afterwards,) 
both  o^  the  just  and  the  unjust.  He  asserts  that  they  all  shall 
arise :  and  also  that  this  same  doctrine  is  asserted  in  the  law 
and  in  the  prophets.  He  also  avers  that  this  doctrine  was  "  al- 
lowed," or  acknowledged  to  be  true,  by  the  Jews  themselves. 
There  can  be  no  plainer  avowal  of  the  truths  for  which  we 
contend,  nor  a  plainer  denial  of  the  theory  contended  for  by 
Professor  Bush.  How  then  does  he  dispose  of  this  over- 
whelming statement?     We  shall  see. 

Entirely  overlooking  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that  there 
SHALL  BE  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  he  begins  his  remarks 
as  follows :  "A  problem  of  a  twofold  solution  is  here  pre- 
sented to  us.  First,  upon  what  authority  Paul  affirms  that 
the  Pharisees  believed  in  a  resurrection  '  both  of  the  just  and 
the  unjust?'  Secondly,  supposing  the  assertion  to  he  well 
founded,  how  are  his  words  to  be  construed  in  consistency 
with  what  we  assume  to  be  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures on  this  subject?"  pp.  251,  252.  And  after  a  feeble 
attempt  at  solving  this  "  twofold  problem,"  he  dismisses  the 
passage  without  further  remark.  But  is  this  criticism?  Such 
a  course  of  evasion  is  utterly  unworthy  the  name  of  inves- 
tigation. We  shall  follow  him,  however,  in  the  solution  of 
his  problem. 

I  pass,  for  the  present,  the  polite  intimation  of  a  doubt  ex- 
pressed by  the  Professor,  whether  the  assertion  o^  the  apostle 
"  be  icell  founded,^''  for  the  reader  will  not  be  at  a  loss  how 
to  estimate  a  theory  that  reduces  its  advocates  to  such  an 
extremity  of  solution.  But  in  examining  the  "authority" 
upon  which  Paul  makes  the  assertion,  it  will  be  proper  first 
to  follow  our  author  in  his  statement  of  counter  authorities. 
He  is  not  satisfied  to  receive  the  testimony  of  the  Apostle  in 
24* 


282  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

this  matter,  unless  supported  by  the  authority  of  others.  I 
suppose  that  Paine  or  Voltaire  would  have  been  fully  willing 
to  believe  the  Bible  on  such  ternns. 

But  the  Professor  attempts  to  sustain  himself  in  this  singu- 
lar position  as  follows :  *'  We  must  certainly  admit  that  the 
unequivocal  assertion  of  an  inspired  apostle  carries  with  it  a 
prima  facie  evidence  of  conveying  an  absolute  truth.  Yet 
when  such  an  assertion  relates  to  a  matter  of  historical  fact, 
on  which  we  have  other  sources  of  information,  we  are, 
doubtless,  at  liberty  freely  to  inquire  how  far  the  assertion  is 
sustained  by  authentic  records,  and  in  what  way  any  appa- 
rent discrepancy  between  them  is  to  be  reconciled.  We  do 
not  conceive  that  the  simple  declaration  even  of  an  inspired 
man,  on  a  subject  of  this  nature,  is  a  necessary  foreclosure 
of  ail  inquiry  into  its  grounds."  p.  252.  But  this  is  a  mere 
evasion  ;  or  an  attempt  to  confound  things  which  are  entirely 
different.  Professor  Bush  cannot  but  know  that  there  is  a 
wide  difference  between  inquiring  into  the  grounds  of  an 
assertion,  the  truth  of  which  is  unquestionable,  and  an  in- 
quiry whether  the  assertion  is  true  or  not.  Now  while  he 
professes  to  be  doing  the  former  of  these  (as  his  words  would 
evince),  he  is  really  doing  the  latter.  And  hence  he  adds, 
*'  In  regard  to  the  present  point,  we  think  the  evidence  is 
conclusive  that  the  Pharisees,  as  a  body,  did  not  hold  to 
the  resurrection  of  the  wicked^  p.  252.  He  also  quotes 
the  testimony  of  Josephus,  and  R.  David  Kimchi,  and  R. 
Menasseh  Ben  Israel,  &c.  &c.,  to  prove  that  they  held  no 
such  sentiments  as  he  asserts  that  Paul  here  attributes  to 
them :  from  all  of  which  he  concludes  that  '•Hhere  seems  no 
room  to  question  that  the  general  sentiments  of  the  Pharisees 
in  all  ages  have  been  adverse  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  wicked,"  (pp.  252-254,)  and  ergo,  Paul  was 
plainly  mistaken  in  asserting  what  he  does  in  the  passage 
before  us. 

Now  there  is  something  so  uncandid  in  such  a  procedure 
— in  pretending  to  be  inquiring  into  the  grounds  of  an  asser- 
tion, and  so  attempting  to  escape  the  odium  which  he  might 
well  apprehend  would  result  from  an  open  denial  of  its  truth, 
at  the  same  time  that  he  is  doing  his  utmost  to  impugn  its 
authority,  that  it  needs  but  be  mentioned  to  become  the  subject 
of  merited  and  universal  reprehension. 

But  yet  this  whole  criticism  of  the  Professor  is  based  upon 
a  total  misapprehension  of  the  passage  before  us.     Paul  is 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  283 

not  here  speaking  of  the  Pharisees  "  as  a  sect,"  hut  of  the 
Jews;  (and  the  Pharisees  were  but  a  small  part  of  the  na- 
tion;) he  affirms  that  the  Jews  held  the  doctrine  referred  to. 
The  Pharisees,  may  or  may  not  have  held  it,  (and  even  our 
author  is  compelled  to  admit  that  at  least  some  of  them  did 
so  believe,)  but  the  Jews  as  a  nation  did  believe  that  the 
wicked  would  be  raised  from  the  dead.  On  the  principle  of 
accommodation^  even  Professor  Bush  is  compelled  to  admit 
this.  For  if  Christ  accommodated  himself  to  the  errors  of 
the  Jews,  it  is  plain  from  Matt.  xxv.  31-46,  and  John  v.  28, 
29,  that  this  must  have  been  the  view  of  the  multitudes  of 
his  hearers.  So  also  if  the  apostles  accommodated  their 
teaching  in  like  manner,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  the 
nation  must  have  entertained  this  view,  as  the  text  itself  un- 
der consideration  at  once  shows.  And  if  they  did  not  ac- 
commodate themselves  thus  to  Jewish  errors,  it  follows  of 
course  that  they  in  these  passages  announced  the  truth. 
So  that  either  way,  our  author  cannot  escape  the  inference 
which  he  denies. 

U  it  be  necessary  to  sustain  by  authority  the  statement 
that  Paul  is  here  speaking,  not  of  the  Pharisees  as  a  sect, 
but  of  the  Jewish  nation,  I  would  refer  the  Professor  to  the 
context;  and  also  to  Home,  who  remarks  that  the  apostle 
is  here  speaking  "  of  the  Jews  in  general,  and  of  himself 
in  particular."  Crit.  Introd.  Vol.  I.  p.  351.  Dr.  Knapp  also 
remarks  that  "  It  may  be  perhaps  that  this  (i.  e.  that  the 
wicked  would  not  be  raised  from  the  dead,)  was  tavght  by 
some  at  the  time  of  Josephus ;  but  during  the  first  century 
it  was  the  more  'prevailing  belief  even  among  the  Pharisees, 
that  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  would  share  in  the 
coming  resurrection^  And  after  referring  to  Acts  xxiv.  15, 
he  continues:  "  But  frequent  traces  of  this  opinion  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Chaldaic  Paraphrases,  and  in  the  writings  of 
the  Rabbins  after  the  time  of  Christ,  although  it  never 
(i.  e.  after  this  time)  became  general  among  the  Jews."  See 
"  Christian  Theology,^''  p.  467,  London  Ed.  So  also  Rabbi 
Israel,  in  his  book  Be  Anima,  cap.  8,  says  that  "  Both  the 
body  and  soul  of  the  Israelites  who  sin  in  the  body  shall  be 
tormented  in  the  fire,"  i.  e.  of  hell.  And  Rabbi  Bechai 
says  that  "  The  Israelites  who  forsake  the  law,  shall  be 
raised  from  the  dead  and  suffer  eternal  torments  in  soul  and 
body." 

Such,  then,  is  the  Professor's  "  solution"  of  the  first  ^^prob- 


284  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

/em."  As  to  the  second,  to  wit, "  how  the  apostle's  words  are 
to  be  understood  consistently  with  the  dominant  teaching  of 
reason  and  revelation  on  the  subject,"  he  remarks  that  they 
are  to  be  explained  as  he,  the  Professor,  has  explained  the 
language  of  Christ,  in  relation  to  the  same  subject.  "  In 
explaining  the  one,"  says  he,  "  we  have  explained  the 
other:"  and  so  he  dismisses  the  subject.  But  so  far  as  the 
Professor's  explanations  of  the  language  of  Christ  are  con- 
cerned, the  reader  will  probably  agree  with  me,  that  to  take 
them  in  order  to  clear  up  the  Professor's  difficulties  with 
this  passage,  would  be  truly  explaining  ignotum  pet  igno- 
tivs. 


SECTION  VII. 

Examination  of  passages  in  the  Epistles. 

I.  The  next  passage  adduced  by  our  author  is  the  fol- 
lowing : — "And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because 
of  sin  ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.  But 
if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead 
dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  shall 
also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth 
in  you."  Rom.  viii.  10,  11.  (p.  255.) 

Professor  Bush  begins  his  remarks  on  this  passage  with 
the  following  observation :  "  Nothing  is  more  obvious  to 
the  careful  reader  of  this  and  the  other  epistles  of  Paul, 
than  that  the  term  '  body'  is  used  in  a  somewhat  figurative 
sense,  to  denote  not  so  much  the  physical  organization  in 
distinction  from  the  soul,  as  the  body  considered  as  the  seat 
and  subject  of  moral  corruption,  and  thus  set  in  opposition 
to  the  spiritual  or  renewed  part  of  our  nature.  By  the 
body's  being  dead,  therefore,''^  &c.  On  the  correctness  of 
this  remark  depends  the  correctness  of  the  exposition  which 
he  offers  of  the  passage.  But  the  remark  is  not  sustained 
by  fact.  It  is  not  a  fact  that  "  nothing  is  more  obvious  to 
the  careful  reader,"  than  that  Paul  thus  places  aofia,  body, 
"in  opposition  to  the  spiritual  or  renewed  part  of  our 
nature."  It  is  painful  to  be  compelled  to  contradict  thus 
pointedly  so  many  positive  assertions  of  Professor  Bush ; 
but  if  he  will  hazard  them  without  examination,  he  must 
expect  that,  when  they  concern  subjects  of  such  vast  im- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  285 

portance,  and  yet  are  unsupported  by  fact,  they  will  be 
contradicted.  The  remark  struck  me  as  somewhat  sin- 
gular, and,  as  I  have  professed  to  be  a  "  careful  reader"  of 
Paul,  and  had  never  noticed  the  fact  asserted  by  the  Pro- 
fessor, I  thought  the  subject  worthy  of  examination.  Our 
author  would  have  the  ow^a,  "  the  seat  and  subject  of  moral 
corruption,"  and  the  antithesis  of  the  "  spiritual  or  renewed 
part  of  our  nature;"  and  then  he  hopes  that  it  will,  there- 
fore, not  appear  to  be  any  very  great  loss,  if,  after  all,  the 
spirit  should  not  become  re-united  therewith.  But  the  truth  of 
the  matter  is  this :  Paul  employs  aui/xa  in  his  epistles  ninety- 
six  times ;  and  out  of  all  these  Professor  Bush  cannot  pro- 
duce five  where  it  is  used  as  he  would  have  it  constantly  to  be. 
So  far  is  this  fact  from  being  obvious  to  the  readers  of  Paul. 
The  word  is  thrice  used  to  designate  the  seat  of  the  affec- 
tions, or  the  nature  of  man  as  led  by  the  senses,  (Rom.  vi. 
6,  and  vii.  24;  1  Cor.  ix.  27,)  and  once,  or  twice,  perhaps, 
as  Professor  Bush  asserts,  (Rom.  viii.  13;  yet  see  the  mar- 
ginal reading  in  Griesbach:)  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
referred  to  as  a  subject  of  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the 
Spirit,  and  directly  styled  "  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit," 
and  an  instrument  of  doing  the  will  of  God  :  1  Cor.  vi.  19, 
20;  Phil.  iii.  21;  Rom.  xii.  1,  2.  If  Professor  Bush  had 
said  that  cra^l  was  often  employed  by  the  apostle  in  contrast 
with  "  the  spiritual  or  renewed  part  of  our  nature ;"  he 
would  have  said  what  is  susceptible  of  proof:  see  Rom.  vii. 
18,  25,  and  viii.  1,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  13;  2  Cor.  x.  2;  Gal.  v. 
13,  16,  17,  19,  24,  and  vi.  8;  Col.  ii.  11,  23.  Xa^^,  flesh, 
is  thus  often  used  in  contrast  with  spirit,  and  the  works  of 
the  flesh  to  the  vwrks  of  the  Spirit;'  and  odt^l  xal  al'ixa, 
flesh  and  blood,  is  said  to  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  but  never  is  this  said  of  the  a^fia,  body.  This  is 
to  be  changed;  Phil.  iii.  21,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  42-55.  And 
so  carefully  does  the  apostle  distinguish  between  them,  (as 
a  general  thing,)  that  in  his  use  of  the  two  terms  in  Col.  ii. 
1 1,  it  is  of  the  flesh,  or  cri^l  that  the  sin  is  predicated  :  "  The 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  fleshy  Professor  Bush,  in  order  to 
maintain  his  theory,  would  evidently  have  these  two  terms 
employed  as  synonyms,  that  he  might  be  able  to  reason 
from  one  to  the  other;  but  this  is  entirely  inadmissible.* 

*  "  SagI  flesh,  properly  differs  from  a-Zy-A  body,  in  this,  that  the 
latter  denotes  the  entire  body,  as  a  whole,  without  respect  to  any  of 


ii86  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

The  Professor  continues  his  remarks  as  follows :  "  By  the 
body's  being  dead,  therefore,  in  connexion  with  Christ's  in- 
habitation of  it,  is  implied  an  admission,  that,  viewed  in 
itself,  as  actuated  by  its  native  propensities,  it  is  indeed  (jwlv) 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  But  I  apprehend  that  there  is 
a  wide  distinction  to  be  observed  between  being  dead  h 
afia^tiaii  in  sins;  and  dead  81  afia^tiav,  on  account  of  sin, 
of  which  Paul  here  speaks.  The  former  cannot  be  predi- 
cated of  a  body  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells;  but  the 
latter  may,  as  it  means  simply  destined  to  death. 

Our  author  proceeds  still  further  to  confound  this  distinc- 
tion, and  then  gives  the  following  explanation  of  the  pas- 
sage: (p.  256.) 

"  This  principle  of  divine  life,  thus  infused  into  the  soul 
which  inhabits  a  body  morally  dead,  will  gradually  work 
outward  from  its  centre,  and  quicken  that  body  also  with  a 
divine  vitality.  For  as  this  principle  of  life  flows  from  Him 
who  '  hath  life  in  himself,'  and  who  gave  such  a  demon- 
stration of  its  efficacy  in  raising  up  Christ  from  the  dead, 
the  supposition  is  perfectly  easy,  that  the  same  power  is 
competent  to  a  complete  spiritual  quickening  of  the  whole 
man  in  his  saints,  so  that  they  shall  stand  before  him  as  in 
the  highest  sense  alive,  soul,  spirit,  and  body.  The  text  is 
therefore  entirely  analogous  with  Col.  ii.  12:  '  Buried  with 
him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead.' " 

But  if  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  certainly 
makes  nothing  in  favour  of  the  Professor's  theory.  If  in  this 
world  the  renovation  of  believers  is  "  a  complete  spiritual 
quickening,"  "  so  that  they  shall  stand  before  God  as  in 
THE  HIGHEST  SENSE  alivc,  soul.  Spirit,  and  body,"  then 
*'  the  spiritual  life  implanted  in  regeneration"  is  something 
more  than  the  commencement  of  the  existence  of  a  tertivm 
quid,  which  is  to  be  eliminated  at  death.  And  if  the  body — 
the  tfw/ia,  thus  becomes  in  the  highest  sense  alive,  under  the 
saving  operations  of  the  Spirit,  it  would  require  some  pretty 
substantial  proof  to  make  one  believe  that  it  would  thereafter 
perish,  so  as  to  be  in  no  sense  partaker  of  the  benefits  of 

its  conditions,  whereas  the  former  denotes  the  human  body  with  re- 
ference to  its  weakness,  its  debility — its  mortality."  Tholuck  in  John 
vi.  59. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  287 

redemption  in  the  next  world.  To  suppose  that  Christ  after 
thus  redeeming  it,  and  making  it  truly  alive,  along  with  the 
soul  and  spirit,  would  still  suffer  it  to  perish  for  ever,  would 
be  to  suppose  what  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of 
Scripture  and  of  right  reason. 

I  am  aware  that  Professor  Stuart,  and  Mr.  Barnes,  and 
other  eminent  critics  have  supposed  that  the  phrase  "  shall 
also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth 
in  you,"  does  not  refer  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  but  to 
its  renewal  and  sanctification  by  the  Spirit.  Calvin  also 
was  of  this  opinion:  "  Unde  colligimus,"  says  he,  "  non  de 
ultima  resurrectione  quae  momenta  fiet,  haberi  sermonem, 
sed  de  continua  Spiritus  operatione,  qua  reliquias  carnis 
paulatim  mortificans,  cselestem  vitam  in  nobis  instaurat." 
Comment,  in  Rom.  viii.  11.  The  same  view  is  taken  by 
Piscator  and  others:  but  these  all  admit  that  as  the  body  is 
thus  renewed,  it  would  be  a  great  absurdity  to  suppose  it 
would  not  be  raised  again  from  the  grave.  There  are,  how- 
ever, equally  great  authorities  who  understand  the  passage 
to  announce  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Dr.  Hodge,  Pareus, 
Howe,  Whitby,  Grotius,  Poole,  and  others,  entertain  this 
view ;  and  even  Crellius,  (whose  denial  of  the  resurrection 
of  precisely  the  same  body  which  is  here  possessed  would 
have  led  him  to  take  some  other  view,)  is  so  pressed  with 
the  obvious  antithesis  in  ver.  11,  that  he  is  compelled  to  fall 
in  substantially  with  the  foregoing  view.  "  It  appears,"  says 
he,  "  that  the  apostle  wishes  to  embrace  a  two-fold  sense  in 
these  words;  the  first  the  principal,  and  the  other  secondary. 
The  principal  is,  that  we  should  receive  these  words  as  refer- 
ring to  the  future  resurrection  and  vivifying.  The  secondary 
is,  that  we  receive  them  as  refrvrring  to  the  spiritual  vivifying 
of  our  bodies,"  &c.  Frat.  Pol.  III.  137.  And  Slichtingius 
on  the  same  passage  remarks,  that  "  By  the  Spirit  of  God 
our  mortal  bodies  are  consecrated  to  immortality,  nor  can 
God  desert  and  leave  them  unless  he  wills  that  his  own  Spirit 
which  dwells  therein  should  desert  and  leave  them."  Vol.  V. 
230.  We  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  give  our  own  view  of 
the  matter  in  reply  to  Professor  Bush,  who,  of  course,  does 
not  believe  that  the  future  resurrection  of  the  body  is  here 
referred  to.  He  thus  proceeds :  "  The  idea  of  any  allusion 
to  a  physical  resurrection  is  opposed  by  the  following  con- 
siderations: 

"(1.)  The  quickening  here  spoken  of  is  evidently  one 


288  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

that  is  effected  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  a 
literal  resurrection  of  the  dead,  even  supposing  it  taught  at 
all,  is  not  elsewhere  attributed  to  the  Spirit.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  the  author  of  the  present  spirtual  life  of  the  saints, 
but  not  of  their  future  physical  life."  p.  256. 

This  is  a  strange  reason  for  Professor  Bush  to  offer.  It 
might  do  for  any  one  else,  but  coming  from  an  advocate  of 
his  theory,  it  borders  rather  on  the  ludicrous.  He  first 
denies  that  "  a  literal  resurrection  of  the  dead  "  is  taught  at 
all,  in  the  Bible;  and  then,  as  though  he  had  admitted  that 
such  a  resurrection  was  to  be  performed  by  the  Father  or 
Son,  he  seriously  tells  us  that  the  Spirit,  at  all  events,  was 
no  where  said  to  be  ''  the  author  of  the  future  physical 
LIFE  "  of  the  saints.  Have  the  saints,  then,  such  a  future 
physical  life?  If  they  have,  why  does  Professor  Bush  else- 
where deny  it?  If  they  have  not,  why  does  he  say  that  the 
Spirit  is  not  the  author  "  of  their  future  physical  life." 

The  absurdity  of  his  urging  this  objection  is  still  further 
apparent  from  the  fact  that  it  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  a 
very  favourite  doctrine  of  his  theory.  He  says,  "  We  must 
believe  that  the  only  germ  in  the  human  body  answering  to 
the  germ  in  the  plant — is  the  spiritual  body  itself ;^^  (p. 
179,)  and  this  ^^ germ"  is  implanted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
regeneration,  says  he:  "  The  effect  of  the  Gospel,  attended 
by  the  energetic  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  to  quicken 
its  recipients  into  a  new  and  divine  life,  which,  as  it  is  a 
virtual  resurrection  while  they  are  yet  in  the  body,  issues 
by  necessary  consequence  in  that  consummated  resurrection 
which  accrues  to  them  upon  their  leaving  the  body^  p. 
138.  "  The  spiritual  body  developed  at  death  is  intimately 
related  to  the  spiritual  life  implanted  in  regeneration."  p. 
140.  And  he  is  perpetually  repeating  this.  Now  is  not 
this  making  the  Holy  Spirit  truly  and  properly  the  author  of 
the  only  resurrection  for  which  our  author  pleads?  And  yet 
he  says  that  "  the  quickening  here  is  evidently  one  that  is 
effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit;"  and  that  as  the  resurrection  is 
not  elsewhere  attributed  to  the  Spirit,  therefore  this  text 
cannot  refer  to  the  resurrection.  But  the  syllogism  might 
be  changed,  on  our  author's  own  principles,  thus ;  The  Spirit 
is  the  author  of  regeneration :  but  regeneration  is  "  a  virtual 
resurrection,"  at  which  time  the  "  germ  "  is  "  implanted," 
which  is  the  resurrection-body;  and  therefore  Rom.  viii.  10, 
11,  does  refer  to  the  resurrection. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  289 

Professor  Stuart  objects  to  the  application  of  this  text  to 
the  resurrection,  on  the  ground  that  this  would  make  the 
resurrection  to  be  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  whom  it  is 
said  to  be  no  where  else  attributed  in  the  Bible.  "  Where," 
he  asks,  "is  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day,  of  our  physical 
bodies,  attributed  to  the  sanctifying  Spirit  in  believers  ?  Very 
different  is  the  statement  in  Col.  ii.  12,  13;  Eph.  i.  19,  20, 
and  ii.  5,  6;  Rom.  vi.  4."  Comment,  in  Rom.  viii.  10.  The 
passages  here  referred  to,  however,  do  not  assert  that  the 
Spirit  will  not  be  concerned  in  the  resurrection  of  believers ; 
but  only  that  he  sanctifies  them  in  this  life. 

Admitting,  however,  that  there  is  no  other  passage,  in 
which  the  Spirit  is  said  to  be  concerned  in  our  resurrection, 
so  far  from  concluding  herefrom  that  this  cannot  be  asserted 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  I  should, 
other  things  being  equal,  deduce  just  the  opposite  inference. 
The  Spirit  is  one  with  the  Father  and  Son,  and  acts  in  unison 
with  them  in  every  work  that  is  not  strictly  personal^  or 
peculiarly  characteristic  of  the  several  persons  of  the  God- 
head as  such;  and  the  resurrection  is  a  work  which  is  not 
more  characteristic  of  the  one  than  the  other,  as  will  be 
shown  presently. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  the  inference,  we  shall  illustrate 
the  premises.  It  will  be  admitted  that  to  each  of  the  persons 
of  the  Trinity  belong  alike  the  names  and  attributes  of  the 
Godhead.  Hence  dominion  is  alike  ascribed  to  each:  see 
Rom.  X.  12;  Luke  ii.  11;  Rom.  xi.  34;  (with  Isa.  xl.  13;) 
2  Cor.  iii.  17.  The  exercise  of  Almighty  power  is  also  attri- 
buted to  each  separtely.  Eph.  iii.  7.  "  The  grace  of  God 
/given  to  me  by  the  effectual  working  of  his  power."  2  Cor. 
xii.  9.  "  That  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me."  Rom. 
XV.  19.  "Mighty  signs  and  wonders  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God."  So  also  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will  is 
attributed  to  each  severally:  e.  g.  Phil.  iii.  15;  Heb.  i.  1, 
attribute  it  to  the  Father;  Gal.  i.  12;  2  Cor.  xiii.  3,  to  the 
Son;  and  Luke  ii.  26;  Mark  xiii.  11;  2  Pet.  i.  21,  to  the 
Spirit.  The  sanctification  of  believers  is  also  in  like  man- 
ner attributed  to  each.  To  the  Father  in  Jude  i.;  to  the 
Son  in  Heb.  ii.  11,  and  to  the  Spirit  in  Rom.  xv.  16.  The 
commission  and  authority  to  preach  the  Gospel  proceeded 
also  from  each  severally.  From  the  Father,  2  Cor.  iii.  5, 
6;  from  the  Son,  1  Tim.  i.  12;  from  the  Spirit,  Acts  xx.  28. 
The  creation  of  mankind  is  ascribed  to  each  also.     To  the 

25 


290  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

Father,  Ps.  c.  3;  to  the  Son,  John  i.  3;  and  to  the  Spirit, 
Job  xxxiii.  4.  "  The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me."  Such  is 
doubtless  the  true  import  of  the  passage  ""Jntrjj  Vir^^'^:  though 
it  is  the  only  passage  which  1  know  of  where  this  work  is 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  is  also  attributed  to  each.  To  the  Father,  1  Cor.  vi. 
14,  "  God  hath  both  raised  up  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise 
us  up  by  his  own  power."  To  the  Son,  John  ii.  19,  "  De- 
stroy this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  To 
the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  "  Christ — being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit." 

Should  we  not  expect  then  to  find,  d  priori,  that  the  same 
agencies  that  raised  the  Head,  would  raise  also  the  members? 
This  expectation  is  certainly  not  unreasonable;  and  espe- 
cially may  we  look  for  some  such  testimony  respecting  the 
Spirit,  when  we  find  the  resurrection  so  clearly  ascribed  to 
both  the  Father  and  Son.  See  John  v.  21.  But  Rom.  viii. 
11,  will  certainly  fairly  admit  of  this  construction:  and  if  it 
be  the  only  passage  which  can  assert  this  truth,  it  strikes 
my  own  mind,  that  so  far  from  this  being  a  reason  why  it 
should  be  otherwise  explained,  it  is  a  strong  a  priori  reason 
to  conclude  that  such  is  indeed  its  true  import. 

There  is  a  striking  propriety  also  in  representing  the 
Spirit   as   participating   in   the   work   of  the   resurrection. 

1.  He  is  the  author  of  life  and  he  restores  spiritual  life  to 
man.     He  renews  and  sanctifies  the  soul  and  body.     Hence 

2.  the  bodies  of  Christians  are  declared  to  be  the  temples 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  Cor.  iii.  16;  and  yi.  19.  Now  the 
resurrection  is  only  the  revival  of  that  life  of  man  which 
death  had  interrupted.  Who  so  proper,  therefore,  to  restore 
and  perfect  that  state  of  being,  and  reconstruct  his  own 
temples  which  death  had  thrown  down,  as  the  great  inhab- 
itant of  those  temples?  3.  We  have  also  seen  that  he  raised 
Christ.  Who  so  proper,  therefore,  to  raise  the  members,  as 
he  who  had  raised  the  Head?  4.  It  may  be  remarked 
fiirther  that  aZfia  TtvBv [xatixov  in  1  Cor.  xv.  is  explained  by 
many  to  mean  not  only  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses,  but 
one  that  will  be  as  it  were  supplied  (i.  e.  raised  and  changed) 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  himself.  5.  This  doctrine  is  also  in  strict 
accordance  with  other  representations  of  the  Bible,  and  with 
the  sentiments  of  the  ancient  Jews.  See  e.  g.  Ezek.  xxxvii. 
9,  10,  where  referring  to  the  resurrection  of  the  army  who 
had  been  slaughtered,  and  whose  bones  were  "  very  dry," 


I 

ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  291 

the  prophet  exclaims,  "  Come,  O  Spirit,  from  the  four 
winds  and  blow  upon  these  slain  that  they  may  live."  Now 
the  Jews  explain  this  to  mean  "  that  the  resurrection  shall 
be  effected  by  virtue  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  Targum  of 
Jonathan  renders  the  passage,  "  And  he  said  to  me,  Prophesy 
to  the  Spirit,  prophesy,  son  of  man,  and  say  to  the  Spirit, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Come  from  the  four  spirits,  unto 
these  slain  that  they  may  live."  I  have  rendered  nnn  "  O 
Spirit,''  instead  of  "  ivind,'''  as  it  is  in  the  English  version, 
for,  that  nn  here  means  Spirit,  seems  to  me  indisputable. 
I  think  that  Professor  Bush  has  fully  demonstrated  this  in 
his  "  Valley  of  Vision,"  p.  22,  23,  in  which  he  well  re- 
marks, that  "  The  case  is  too  clear  to  admit  of  doubt,  that 
the  Spirit  here  spoken  of  is  to  be  understood  of  the  Holy- 
Spirit."  Consequently,  as  there  is  always  the  strictest  pro- 
priety in  all  the  figures  employed  in  the  revelation  of  God, 
and  as  this  passage,  though  it  presents  a  symbolical  resur- 
rection, is  descriptive  of  a  literal  one,  we  may  truly  conclude 
that  it  is  the  province  of  the  Spirit  to  resuscitate  not  only 
the  morally  but  physically  dead.  6.  And  finally,  such  was 
likewise  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church,  who  seem  to 
have  attached  this  meaning  to  the  passage.  Irenseus  says, 
"  Our  bodies  rising  by  the  Spirit  shall  be  made  spiritual,  and 
by  the  Spirit  they  shall  have  a  life  which  shall  always  con- 
tinue." Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  c.  7.  And  Origen,  in  Rom.  viii. 
11,  says,  '*  They  may  know  that  by  the  Spirit  of  him  who 
raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  they  shall  be  revived,  and 
raised  from  the  dead  after  the  similitude  of  Christ." 

The  next  exception  of  Professor  Bush  against  referring 
this  passage  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  as  follows ; 

"  (2)  The  phrase  ^vr^ta  oJifxata,  mortal  bodies,  cannot  fair- 
ly  be  interpreted  to  mean  the  same  as  vsx^a  (s^fjca'ta,  dead 
bodies,  which  yet  it  must  be,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  literal 
resurrection  is  here  taught.  By  '  mortal'  is  signified,  not 
dead,  but  tending  to  death,  subject  to  death.  On  the  theory 
assumed,  the  apostle  is  in  reality  made  to  say, '  God  shall 
raise  to  life  your  living  dead  bodies,'  which  is  of  course  an 
idea  too  extravagant  to  be  for  a  moment  admitted."  p.  256-7. 

But  this  is  a  mere  witticism.  And  even  if  "  the  theory 
assumed"  does  make  Paul  speak  thus,  it  would  have  been 
wise  for  Professor  Bush  before  he  thus  referred  to  it,  to 
inquire  how  his  own  theory  must  make  Paul  speak.  He 
must  say,  according  to  our  author,  "  God  will  raise  to  life 


292  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

your  living  bodies ;"  or,  if  the  resurrection  be  not  referred 
to,  as  Professor  Bush  maintains,  then,  as  the  words  are  ad- 
dressed to  Christians,  i.  e.,  those  already  quickened,  our 
author's  theory  must  make  Paul  say,  "  God  will  raise  to 
life  your  spiritual  bodies,  which  are  already  alive,  and 
which  can  never  die,  because  they  shall  be  eliminated  at 
death." 

But  as  to  the  assertion,  in  the  former  part  of  this  ob- 
jection, that  "  dvTjTfa  aJi^ata,  cannot  fairly  be  interpreted  to 
mean  the  same  as  vex^d  cfto/Aata,"  it  is  copied  from  Mr. 
Locke's  paraphrase,  and  is  worth  about  as  much  as  the 
generality  of  his  profound  exegetical  remarks.  Mr.  Locke 
did  not  produce  any  proof  whatever  of  his  assertion,  and 
Professor  Bush  imitates  him  so  closely  as  even  to  imitate 
him  in  this.  But  our  author  contradicts  his  own  exposition. 
The  phrase  trw^a  vsx^bv  occurs  in  ver.  10,  and  in  expound- 
ing it,  as  we  have  seen  above,  he  gives  it  the  same  meaning 
that  he  here  attaches  to  ffw^a  dvTjtbv — making  them  both  mean 
a  body  that  is  truly  living. 

He  also  copies  from  Mr.  Locke  the  criticism,  that  evfitbv 
supposes  the  thing  joined  with  it  to  be  living;  and  hence 
he  has  translated  the  phrase,  "  living  dead  bodies,"  taking 
for  granted  that  Mr.  Locke's  authority  settles  the  point. 
But,  1.  I  remark  that  when  this  term,  as  in  this  place, 
refers  to  a  body  to  be  quickened,  it  never  means  any  thing 
else  than  a  dead  body.  Professor  Stuart,  (against  whose 
authority  in  a  matter  of  Greek  usage  even  Professor  Bush 
would  hardly  venture  to  bring  that  of  Mr.  Locke,)  plainly 
allows,  that  the  phrase  here  means  the  same  thing  as  owjua 
vsx^bv.  Vorstius  remarks,  that  "  Owita  is  here  put  for  vsx- 
^w^Ej/fa,"  i.  e.,  datum  neci.  But,  2.  So  far  from  evTjtbv 
never  meaning  that  which  is  truly  dead,  we  find  Paul,  in 
1  Cor.  XV.,  twice  applying  it  as  descriptive  of  the  state  of 
the  body  in  the  day  of  its  resurrection  from  the  grave.  At 
that  time,  says  he,  this  mortal^  (that  is,  the  bodies  of  men, 
whether  they  shall  be  then  living,  or  shall  have  previously 
died,)  to  Ovritbv  tovto,  shall  put  on  immortality;  and  that, 
when  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  death 
shall  be  swallowed  up  in  victory.  3.  The  analogous  pas- 
sage in  2  Cor.  iv.  14,  also  clearly  implies  that  such  must 
be  the  import  of  the  phrase:  "He  which  raised  up  the 
Lord  Jesus,  shall  raise  us  up  also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  pre- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  293 

sent  us  with  you."  See,  also,  Cudworih's  excellent  criticism. 
Works  II.,  605. 

The  last  exception  of  Professor  Bush  is  the  following  : 

"  (3.)  This  interpretation  destroys  the  continuity  and  co- 
herence of  the  apostle's  discourse.  It  supposes  him  abruptly 
to  break  off  from  a  connected  series  of  remarks  relative  to 
walking  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit,  to  leap  on- 
ward to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and,  having  simply 
glanced  at  this,  to  return  as  suddenly  and  resume  the  thread 
of  his  argument.  This  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  violent 
supposition."  p.  257. 

This,  too,  is  taken  from  Mr.  Locke;  and  a  careful  viewing 
of  the  passage  will  show  it  to  be  altogether  unfounded.  Paul 
is  discoursing  of  the  benefits  and  advantages  of  those  who 
walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit — they  shall 
have  life  and  peace  here  through  the  Spirit;  and  though 
the  body  is  destined  to  death  because  of  sin,  yet  it  shall 
not  perish;  but  as  God  raised  up  Christ's  body,  so,  also, 
shall  the  bodies  of  believers  be  raised  by  the  Spirit,  and 
thus,  their  salvation  be  complete.  And  hence  we  are  not 
debtors,  to  live  after  the  flesh,  for  they  who  do  so  shall  die, 
(penally,)  but  those  who  by  the  Spirit  mortify  the  deeds  of 
the  body  shall  live.  There  is  no  "  leaping,"  nor  *'  abrupt 
breaking  off","  here;  but  the  argument  is  logical  and  con- 
clusive. 

II.  The  next  passage  is  v.  22,  23  of  the  same  chapter. 
"  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth,  and  tra- 
vaileth  in  pain  together  until  now :  for  not  only  they,  but 
ourselves  also,  which  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even 
we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  waiting  for  the  adop- 
tion, to  wit,  the  redemption  of  the  body :  f^v  arco^vt^Maiv  tov 
acufidtoi  ^iLtwv."  p.  258.  / 

Professor  Bush  offers  but  a  very  few  remarks  on  this 
passage ;  and  to  discuss  it  fully  in  its  connexion,  would  re- 
quire many  more  pages  than  can  be  here  occupied  for  such 
a  purpose.  We  shall  therefore  dismiss  it  with  a  brief  remark 
or  two  upon  his  exposition  of  the  latter  part  of  it;  for  it  is 
to  this  that  his  criticisms  are  wholly  confined.  The  sum  of 
what  he  offers  is  the  following: — After  remarking  that  the 
adoption  here  mentioned  is  undoubtedly  the  manifestation  of 
the  sons  of  God,  he  adds,  "  The  '  redemption  of  the  body' 
evidently  indicates  a  state  identical  with  that  of  this  acknow- 
ledged adoption  which  is  in  reserve  for  the  heirs  of  the 

25* 


294  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

kingdom.  This  is  to  be  the  realized  consummation  of  the 
Christian's  hopes,  that  to  which  they  are  all  to  come  as  one 
redeemed,  regenerated,  sanctified  hody.  It  is  their  common 
inheritance ;  and  as  the  church  is  often  spoken  of  as  a  hody, 
of  which  Christ  is  the  presiding  head  and  the  pervading  life, 
we  perceive  nothing  incongruous  in  the  idea  that  this  collec- 
tive body  of  the  saints  is  here  intended  by  Paul.  Certain  it 
is,  that  there  is  a  difficulty,  on  every  other  explanation,  of 
accounting  for  the  use  of  the  singular  number  in  this  con- 
nexion. Why,  if  the  common  view  be  well  founded,  does 
he  not  say  <  redemption  of  our  bodies'  instead  of  '  redemp- 
tion of  our  hodyV  This  may  appear  at  first  blush  a  criti- 
cism of  little  weight,  but  we  are  persuaded  it  is  one  of  prime 
importance,  and  that  we  are  entitled  to  demand  some  rational 
solution  of  the  problem  involved  in  the  phraseology.  Nothing 
certainly  would  be  more  natural  than  the  use  of  the  plural 
if  he  were  speaking  of  the  physical  resurrection  of  believers. 
As  it  is,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  term  is  to  be  taken  in  a 
collective  sense,  for  the  spiritual  or  mystical  body  of  Christ, 
the  whole  aggregate  of  believers ;  so  that '  our  body,'  in  this 
connexion,  is  merely  another  phrase  for  the  hody  to  which 
we  helong." 

The  idea  here  asserted,  and  which  runs  through  this  whole 
extract,  is  that  toy  acufidto^  jj/twv,  our  hody,  here,  as  a  col- 
lective noun,  refers  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  redeemed  and 
saved  by  him ;  and  the  criticism  designed  to  sustain  this  view, 
and  which  Professor  Bush  thinks  "  is  one  of  prime  impor- 
tance," and  which  justifies  him  in  "  demanding  some  rational 
solution  of  the  prohlem{  !  )  involved  in  the  phraseology,"  is 
that  if  o^fxa  here  refers  to  the  physical  body  of  the  Christian, 
why  should  not  the  phrase  be  "  redemption  of  our  hodies, 
instead  of  redemption  of  our  hody  ?"  We  shall  attend  to 
each  of  these  in  their  order. 

Professor  Bush,  in  introducing  the  former  of  these  ideas, 
has  confused  his  own  mind  more  than  a  little,  by  not  having 
noticed  that  the  New  Testament  clearly  announces  a  twofold 
adoption  or  filiation.  The  first  takes  place  in  regeneration, 
when  the  believer  is  born  again.  See  John  i.  12,  13,  and  iii. 
3-5.  And  hence  he  is  said  to  have  the  spirit  of  filiation, 
7ivEvfji,a,  vloOsalai,  whereby  he  cries  Abba,  Father.  Rom.  viii. 
14, 15.  See  also  1  John  iii.  1,  2.  This  takes  place  while 
the  believer  is  in  the  present  world.  But  there  is  another 
and  more  glorious  and  manifested  adoption,  and  which  is 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  295 

referred  to  in  v.  23  of  the  passage  before  us,  at  which  glori- 
ous period  the  believer  is  raised  from  the  dead,  and  }hus  being 
a  "child  of  that  resurrection"  to  immortal  life  and  bliss,  which 
is  alone  the  prerogative  of  those  who  on  earth  had  been  the 
children  of  God,  he  is  made  "  like  to  the  angels."  Luke  xx. 
36.  This  manifestation  of  adoption  is  immediately  conse- 
quent upon  the  resurrection ;  (and  hence  this  is  the  period 
for  which  believers  are  looking  with  groaning  and  anxious 
expectation;)  nor  is  there  any  where  a  statement  of  the  pro- 
mise of  this  glorious  adoption,  unless  in  this  connexion.  But 
Professor  Bush  makes  the  resurrection  <d^  believers  (which 
is  itself  a  part  of  this  very  manifestation)  to  occur  at  the 
death  of  each  believer,  and  the  manifestation  of  adoption  to 
occur  at  some  vast  and  indefinite  period  afterwards.  And 
thus,  instead  of  the  believer's  spirit,  by  virtue  of  his  adoption 
at  regeneration,  retiring  at  death  to  a  region  of  rest,  and  there 
expecting  his  full  redemption,  which  shall  be  when  the  body 
is  raised  and  changed  into  a  spiritual  body ;  at  which  period 
it  will  be  gloriously  manifested  to  all  orders  of  holy  beings 
that  he  is  a  son  of  God ;  Professor  Bush  would  have  the  be- 
liever raised  at  death,  and  enter  into  the  fullest  and  highest 
fruition  of  heaven's  joys,  before  it  has  been  manifested  that  he 
is  a  son  of  God:  and  thus  he  frustrates  the  very  object  of  such 
manifestation;  reverses  the  whole  order  of  the  divine  economy 
in  this  matter,  and  renders  the  great  and  glorious  event,  for 
the  occurrence  of  which  the  whole  creation  groans,  an  un- 
meaning and  uninteresting  ceremony. 

As  to  the  assertion  that  ow^ua  '^fiwv  is  here  a  collective 
noun,  it  is  an  assertion  that  cannot  be  sustained.  Lightfoot 
entertains  the  same  view  (Works,  II.  1149,  1150,)  but  offers 
no  proof  to  support  it.  The  idea  originated  with  Origen, 
who  says  that  "  our  body  here  means  the  whole  church ;" 
to  which'  Parous  shrewdly  replies  that  the  sentiment  "  is 
pious,  but  not  solid;  for  the  church  is  not  our  body.''''  Com- 
ment, in  loco.  Piscator  correctly  remarks,  that  the  singu- 
lar is  here  put  for  the  plural,  our  bodies,  by  an  enallage  of 
the  number.  Grotius  favours  the  same  view,  and  Osiander 
also,  in  loco.  But  the  remarks  of  Crellius  are  so  pertinent, 
though  plainly  militating  against  his  own  view  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, that  I  will  present  a  quotation.  "  The  redemption  of 
our  body,"  says  he,  "  is  the  liberation  of  our  body  (corporis 
nostri)  from  all  evil  and  corruption;  which  shall  be  effected 
when  our  bodies  are  made  like  to  the  glorious  body  of 


296       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

Christ,"  in  loco.  Slichtingius  gives  the  same  view :  "  The 
apostle  explains  by  apposition  what  he  understands  by  adop- 
tion in  this  place;  to  wit  redemption,  that  is,  by  a  synec- 
doche of  the  species  for  the  genus,  the  deliverance  or  libera- 
tion of  our  body.  The  soul  is  now  redeemed  and  delivered 
from  vice;  but  our  body  is  not  yet  redeemed  and  liberated 
from  death  and  corruption,  and  from  those  things  which 
bring  death  and  corruption.  But  so  long  as  our  body  re- 
mains in  this  servitude,  so  long  shall  our  blessedness  be  in- 
complete and  imperfect;  but  it  will  continue  therein  until  it 
is  delivered  from  it  by  being  gloriously  changed."  [in  loco.) 
But  yet,  as  Professor  Hodge  remarks,  "  The  redemption  of 
the  body  is  not  so  in  apposition  with  the  adoption  that  the 
two  phrases  are  equivalent.  The  adoption  includes  far  more 
than  the  redemption  of  the  body.  But  the  latter  event  is  to 
be  coincident  with  the  former,  and  is  included  in  it  as  one 
of  its  most  prominent  parts.  Both  expressions,  therefore, 
designate  the  same  period."  See  in  loco. 

This  exposition  of  the  phrase,  our  body,  as  presented  by 
these  writers,  and  to  whose  testimony  that  of  Professor 
Stuart  may  be  added,  is  clearly  the  true  idea.  Never  is  the 
church  called  our  body;  but  in  its  collective  capacity  it  is 
always  declared  to  be  the  body  of  Christ.  See  1  Cor.  xii. 
27;  Eph.  i.  23,  and  iv.  12;  Col.  i.  18,  24. 

But  secondly,  what  is  the  weight  of  the  "  criticism  of 
prime  importance"  by  which  Professor  Bush  endeavours  to 
sustain  this  view?  Unfortunately  for  him,  it  is  at  direct 
variance  with  the  usage  of  the  apostle,  and  therefore  it  can 
afford  the  Professor  no  assistance  whatever.  The  very  next 
passage  which  he  quotes  (2  Cor.  v.  2-4,)  contains  no  less 
than  thr6e  refutations  of  this  prime  criticism :  "  For  in  this 
(rovT'gj  to  wit,  in  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle,  ^ 
stciysio^  ilfxu)v  oixla  tai)  ax'^vov^.  ver.  1.)  we  groan,  earn- 
estly desiring  to  be  clothed  upon  with  our  house  [nothouses, 
to  Qlxri't'^iov  yifi^,)  which  is  from  heaven.  For  We  that  are 
ill  this  tabernacle  (not  tabernacles,  h  v^  ax^vst)  do  groaft 
being  burdened-."  Would  it,  therefore,  be  a  criticism  of 
prime  import^ftce  to  ask  why  Paul  did  not  here, say  houses ^ 
£ft)d  tabernacles  iftstead  of  house  SLndtdbernacle,  when  he 
clearly  referred  to  the  earthly  and  heavenly  bodies  of  all  be- 
lievers? So  also  in-  Phil;  iii.  21,  he  says,  "Who  shall 
chdetige  OUT  T>ile  body, ''^(^tb  (jwwoc  t'^$  rartstrcocrsoj  rjfiiivJ)  Here 
is  the  same  "  collective  noun  "  according  to  Professor  Bush. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  297 

And  is  the  church  of  Christ,  then,  a  vile  body?  But  these 
references  are  more  than  sufficient  to  show  the  futility  of  this 
"  prime  "  criticism,  without  wasting  any  more  time  upon  the 
subject. 

III.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  our  author  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "For  in  this  we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to  be 
clothed  upon  with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven:  if  so 
be  that  being  clothed,  we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For 
we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan  being  burdened :  not 
for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon,  that  mor- 
tality might  be  swallowed  up  of  life."  2  Cor.  v.  2-4.  p.  259. 

To  have  presented  this  passage  complete.  Professor  Bush 
ought  to  have  quoted  ver.  1:  "For  we  know,  that  if  our 
earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a 
building  of  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in 
the  heavens."  He  commences  his  criticism  on  the  passage 
with  the  remark  that  "  several  points  having  an  important 
bearing  on  our  theme,  disclose  themselves  in  this  passage." 
The  Jirst  of  these  is,  that  "the  house  from  heaven  for  which 
the  apostle  longed  is  the  same  with  the  spiritual  body  of 
which  he  speaks."  1  Cor.  xv.  44.  And  this,  says  he  is 
"  the  very  unanimous  judgment  of  commentators  :"  and  he 
considers  it  not  "  undeserving  of  notice  that  the  apostle  here 
uses  the  present  tense  ^xoH'^v,  we  have,  and  not  the  future, 
we  shall  haveJ^ 

It  may  be  indeed  true,  that  the  house  from  heaven  is  the 
spiritual  or  resurrection  body:  but  there  is  not  the  least  inti- 
mation in  the  passage  that  the  apostle  expected  to  be  thus 
clothed  at  death.  His  earnest  desire  to  be  clothed  with  the 
heavenly  tabernacle  is  not  therefore  an  earnest  desire  to  die 
(as  Professor  Bush's  theory  would  represent  it,)  but  an  ear- 
nest desire  for  the  redemption  of  the  body,  which  will  be 
effected  at  the  resurrection.  The  Jews  represented  the  inter- 
mediate, or  separate  state  of  the  soul  as  an  imperfect  state, 
and  speak  of  it  as  nakedness.  See  e.  g.,  the  Chaldee  Para- 
phrasts  on  Job  xxxviii.  14,  &c.,  and  this  is  the  very  idea  of 
Paul  here;  6v  yvfivot  sv^vjdsoofjLidajthat  we  should  not  be  found 
naked.  In  Pirk.  Eliezer,  c.  30,  and  also  in  Midrash  Cohe* 
leth,  c.  5,  the  Rabbins  say  that  a  Samaritan  came  to  inquire 
of  Rabbi  Meir  (who  was  born  under  Nero,)  whether  the 
dead  rise  naked?  to  whom  the  Rabbi  answered  that  "  The 
pea  which  is  sown  naked,  is  raised  clothed  with  a  pod,  and 
much  more,  therefore,  do  the  dead  arise  clothed."     The 


2^98  THE    RESlTRRECTION    OF    THE    BODY 

idea  of  the  apostle  therefore,  is,  that  the  dissolution  of  our 
earthly  house  will  leave  us  naked  until  we  are  clothed  upon 
with  our  heavenly  house;  and  therefore  we  desire  the  glo- 
rious period  of  the  redemption  of  the  body  to  come,  so  that 
being  clothed  we  shall  not  be  found  naked. 

The  criticism  that  is  not  "undeserving  of  notice,"  that 
Paul  here  uses  the  present,  we  have,  instead  of  the  future, 
we  shall  have,  (by  which  our  author  would  desire  to  inti- 
mate that  the  resurrection  must  take  place  at  death,)  is 
unWort-hy  of. any  one  but  a  mere  tyro.  Does  not  Professor 
Bush  kpow  that  the  sacred  writers  often  use  the  present 
tense  for  the  future?  Let  him  turn  to  John  iii.  36,  and  vi. 
47,  and  Matt.  xxvi.  2,  and  xvii.  11;  or  let  him  turn  to  Wi- 
ner^s  Idioms  of  the  New  Testament^  Part  III.  §  41. 

The  other  •'  important  point  disclosed  in  this  passage,"  ac- 
cording to  the.  Professor,  is  thus  stated  by  him : 

"  Secondly,  it  is  clear,  we  think,  that  Paul  expected  to  be 
clothed  upon  with  this  heavenly  house  as  soon  as  he  left 
the  material  body.  This  is  evident  from  the  whole  strain 
of  his  discourse,  "but  especially  from  v.  6,  8:  'Knowing 
that,  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent 
from  the  Lord :  we  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather 
to  be  absent  froni  the  body,  and  present  with  the  Lord.' 
What  other  inference  can  we  draw  from  this,  than  that  he 
expected  at  once  to  assume  that  celestial  tenement  which 
would  capacitate  him  for  '  being  with  Christ?'  that  is,  hav- 
ing a  .body  'fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,'  as 
Moses  and  Elijah  certainly  had  when  they  appeared  with 
him  upon  the  holy  mount.  If  he  did  not  anticipate  an  im- 
mediate entrance  at  death  into  the  beatific  presence,  where 
did  he  expect  to  be?  Did  he  count  upon  a  long  interval  of 
dormant  and  unconscious  repose  before  he  awoke  to  the 
felicities  of  heaven?  Did  he  believe  the  soul  would  sink 
into  a  dreary  lethargy  of  centuries  or  chiliads  in  duration, 
while  the  body  was  mouldering  away  in  the  dust,  and  pass- 
ing into  unnumbered  new  Telations?" 

This  passage  calls  for  several  remarks.  And,  1.  To  iri- 
timate,  as  Professor  Bush  here  does,  that  those  who  enter- 
tain, the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  believe  in 
the"dorniant  or  unconscious  repose"  of  the  soul ;  and  to 
pretend  that  there  is  no  alternative  between  believing  that 
the  resurrection  takes  place  at  death,  and  that  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  soul  is  suspended  between  death  and  the 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  299 

resurrection,  is  a  course  of  procedure  not  only  unworthy 
of  him,  but  which  evinces  that  he  felt  it  to  be  rather  hard 
work  to  press  this  passage  into  the  support  of  a  theory 
with  which  it  is  at  direct  variance.  2.  It  is  not  clear, 
as  the  Professor  asserts,  that  Paul  expected  to  be  cloth- 
ed upon  (with  this  heavenly  house,  i.  e.,  as  he  explains 
it,  to  enter  the  resurrection-state,)  as  soon  as  he  left  the 
body.  His  expression  simply  is,  that  "although  his  earthly 
house  were  dissolved,  he  should  have  a  house  not  made 
with  hands,  that  would  never  be  dissolved,  but  continue 
eternally  in  the  heavens."  As  to  entering  that  house  im- 
mediately on  leaving  the  body,  the  text  neither  asserts  nor 
implies  it.  3.  The  passage,  so  far  from  sustaining  the  Pro- 
fessor's theory,  directly  impugns'  it.  Paul  says,  "  We  do 
not  groan  to  be  unclothed,  or  divested  of  this  earthly  taber- 
nacle, {i.  e.,  to  die)  but  clothed  upon,".  &c.,  ver.  4.  Un-. 
clothing,  therefore,  and  being  clothed  upon,  are  plainly  two 
distinct  things;  as  distinct  in  this  economy  as  in  n^iture 
itself.  The  putting  o.ff  the  garment  is  one  thing,  (and  this, 
says-  Paul,  is  not,  in  itself,  the  thing  which  we  are.  so 
anxious  for,  see  Phil.  i.  23,  24,)  and  putting  on  another 
garrnent  is  another  and  a  different  thing.  But  Professor 
Bush  makes  both  to  be  one  and  the  same  thing.  He 
makes  Paul  here  express  a  wish  to  retain  his  undergar- 
ment, and  merely  to  throw  off  his  outer  one.  "  Even  in  the 
present  life,"  says  he,  "it  is  the  spiritual  body  which  feels 
the  sensations  of  pleasure  arid,  pain;"  (p.  264;)  and  this 
body  merely  forsakes,  or  throws  off,  the  outer  body  at 
death.  Now  if  Mr.  Noble,  (a  favourite  writer  of  Professor 
Bush,)  should  have  upon  him  at  one, and  the  same  time  two 
coats,  an  under  coat,  and  a  "  great  coat;"  and  should,  upon 
calling  to  see  the  Professor,  throw  off  his  over  coat;  and  then 
begin  the  conversation  by  saying,  '*  I  have  had  such  a  desire 
to  put  off  this  great  coat,  and  to  put  on  the  one  that  I  now 
have,  and  which  you  have  seen  me  put  on  by  throwing  off  the 
other;"  would  the  Professor  admit  that  there  was  either 
sense  or  reason  in  this?-  And  yet  this  is  the  way.  he  makes 
the  apostle  reason  in  the  passage  before  us.  When  the 
putting  off  an  over  coat,  therefore,  is  the  same  thing  ^vith 
putting  on  an  under  coat,  the  Professor  may  say. that,  .this 
passage  does  not  pointedly  condemn  his  theory, '. 

4.  The  6th  and  8th  verses,  which  the  Professor  quotes -in 
the  above  extract,  do  not  prove  that  the  resurrection  takes 


300       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

place  at  death.  They  have  no  reference  to  that  event,  but 
refer  merely  to  the  separate  stale  of  the  souls  of  the  blessed, 
who  after  death  go  to  the  Lord,  to  wait  for  the  redemption 
of  the  body.  See  Luke  xxiii.  42,  43,  and  xvi.  22;  Rev.  vi. 
9-11,  &LC.  And  the  assertion,  therefore,  which  the  Pro- 
fessor makes  on  the  next  page,  (p.  261,)  that  Paul  evi- 
dently regarded  his  being  clothed  upon,  (i.  e.,  with  his 
resurrection-body,)  as  "  a  necessary  preliminary  to  his  be- 
ing with  Christ,"  is  an  assertion  that  has  nothing  to  sustain 
it.  Moses,  and  the  souls  mentioned  in  Rev.  vi.  9-11,  and 
the  penitent  thief,  Luke  xxiii.  42,  43,  in  their  separate  state, 
are  present  with  Christ,  as  much  as  are  Enoch  and  Elijah. 
It  is,  therefore,  a  misstatement  to  attribute  to  Paul  a  senti- 
ment the  reverse  of  this.* 

IV.  The  next  passage  quoted  is  v.  10,  "  For  we  must  all 
appeal"  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one 
may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that 
he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  p.  262. 

On  this  passage  the  Professor  correctly  remarks,  that 
"  The  original,  *  for  we  must  all  appear'  (tovs  ya^  rtdvtas 
T^ixai  ^avs^w^^vat  5ft),  means  properly,  we  must  all  be  mani- 
fested. The  idea  conveyed  is  something  more  than  that  of 
the  simple  fact  of  our  standing  or  being  presented  at  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ.     It  implies  the  development  which 

*  I  have  been  amused  at  the  Professor  for  introducing  the  fol- 
lowing- passage  in  this  connexion. — "  No  one  can  fail  to  be  struck 
with  the  evangelical  tone  of  Cicero's  language  on  a  similar  subject, 
iri  his  Tusculan  Questions — '  posse  animos,  quum  e  corporibus  ex- 
cesserint,  in  coelum,  quasi  in  domicilium  suum,  pervenire,'  that  souls 
may,  when  they  have  forsaken  their  bodies,  come  into  heaven  as  into 
their  own  domicil"  p.  260. — He  has  evidently  quoted  the  passage  at 
secondhand,  for  he  has  not  given  it  correctly,  nor  does  he  tell  in 
what  book  of  the  Tusculan  Questions  to  find  it.  I  shall  not  here 
criticise  it,  however,  (for  the  reader  can,  if  disposed,  consult  it  in  its 
connexion,  in  Lib.  1.,  cap.  11,)  but  only  express  my  wonder  that  the 
Professor  should  pronounce  the  sentiment  evangelical.  That  it  is 
evangelical,  1  admit ;  but  how  can  he  admit  it  in  consistency  with 
his  theory?  Cicero,  in  connexion  with  the  passage,  (see  cap.  9,  and 
10,  and  12,)  holds  to  the  entire  destruction  of  the  body,  of  which  he 
would  not  leave  even  a  tertium  quid.  He  speaks,  as  Professor 
Bush's  translation  shows,  merely  of  the  "  soul,''^  upon  leaving  the 
body,  entering,  not  a  spiritual  body,  but  heaven  itself,  as  its  own 
permanent  abode.  And  this,  says  Professor  Bush,  is  so  evangelical, 
that  "  no  one  can  fail  to  be  struck  with  it."  But  if  this  is  evangelical, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Professor's  theory  is  not  so. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  30l 

then  is  to  be  made  of  character,  as  the  ground  of  retribu- 
tion." He  then  makes  a  long  quotation  from  Mr.  Locke, 
in  which  that  philosopher  denies  the  identity  of  the  present 
body  with  the  future  wa^eriaZ resurrection  body;  and  whose 
sentiments  he  leaves  to  "  carry  their  own  weight  to  the  mind 
of  the  reader."  We  have,  however,  sufficiently  discussed 
this  question  of  identity,  and  shall  pass  it  here  without 
further  remark.  The  Professor  also  adds,  that  he  sees  '*  in 
the  text  no  allusion  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body;  and 
with  any  thing  else  that  may  be  taught  by  it  we  have  at 
present  no  concern.  He  that  has  sinned  or  obeyed  in  the 
material  body  may  properly  be  rewarded  or  punished  in 
the  spiritual  body ;  as  it  is  in  that,  that  the  true  personality 
of  every  one  resides.  The  idea  that  the  present  body  must 
necessarily  share  in  the  punishment  of  the  sins  which  it  was 
instrumental  in  committing,  is  one  that  receives  no  counte- 
nance from  the  decisions  of  a  sound  reason.  The  body,  as 
such,  is  no  more  capable  of  suffering  than  the  sword,  the 
pistol,  or  the  bludgeon,  with  which  the  murderer  may  have 
taken  the  life  of  a  fellow  being.  Sensations,  it  is  true,  are 
received  through  the  body,  but  the  body  is  no  more  the  seat 
or  subject  of  them,  than  the  telescope  is  the  subject  of  vision. 
Even  in  the  present  life,  it  is  the  spiritual  body  which  feels 
the  sensations  of  pleasure  or  pain.  How  much  more  in  the 
life  to  come?"  pp.  263,  264.  Such  is  the  comment  of  our 
author  on  the  passage ;  and  it  calls  for  but  a  few  brief  re- 
marks. 

1.  And  ^rs^,  the  simultaneousness  of  the  judgment  here 
referred  to  by  Paul,  (compare  Matt.  xxv.  31-46,  and  Rev. 
XX.  11-15,)  is  entirely  passed  over  by  our  author  without 
notice,  though  it  is  a  matter  so  deeply  affecting  his  theory. 
We  need  not  here  dwell  upon  the  subject,  however,  for  it 
will  come  up  for  discussion  hereafter. 

2.  As  Professor  Bush  can  see  no  allusion  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  in  the  text  as  he  quotes  it,  can  he  not  in  that 
important  reading  referred  to  and  advocated  by  Grotius, 
(See  also  Bengels'  Apparatus  Criticus  in  loco,  and  Gries- 
bach's  Nov.  Test.)  of  ta  I8ia  tov  ow/itafoj,  for  ta  5ia  tov 
cfo/wafoj  ?  That  is,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
proper  or  appropriate  to  the  body.  Besides  the  support  of 
some  important  MSS.,  this  reading  is  sustained  by  Origen 
and  Theodoret,  &c.  The  Latin  vulgate  gives  it  the  same ; 
*^ut  referat  unusquisque  propria  corporis,''^      Grotius,  in 

26 


S02       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

explaining  the  reading  remarks  that  *'  tSta,  here,  are  those 
things  which  are  due  to  the  body;  as  justice  is  said  to  render 
to  every  one  his  own,  because  it  is  often  ^"6  d^jwd^ov,  or  suita- 
ble. That  every  one  may  receive  the  reward  or  punish- 
ment which  is  due  to  his  body,^^  Such  is  his  view  of  it, 
though  he  explains  corpus  to  mean  person,  or  the  man  him- 
self; a  criticism  that  will  not  harmonize  very  well  with 
the  foregoing  remarks  of  Professor  Bush.  But  in  a  pro- 
fessed examination  of  this  text  by  a  critic  who  announces 
conclusions  so  utterly  at  variance  with  this  reading,  import- 
ant as  it  is,  and  who  was  therefore  bound  to  give  it  a  most 
serious  consideration,  we  find  that  he  has  taken  not  the 
least  notice  of  it.  Is  this  the  way  to  illustrate  the  propo- 
sition that  "the  knowledge  of  revelation  is  progressive?" 
3.  But  says  Professor  Bush,  "The  idea  that  the  present 
body  must  necessarily  share  in  the  punishment  of  the  sins 
■which  it  was  instrumental  in  committing,  is  one  that  receives 
no  countenance  from  the  decisions  of  a  sound  reason^ 
This  assertion  needs  proof,  and  our  author  has  offered  none. 
And  from  the  specimens  of  his  argumentation  which  we  have 
already  had,  we  must  be  excused  for  expressing  a  doubt  as 
to  his  qualifications  for  being  an  umpire  as  to  what  "sound 
reason"  does  or  does  not  teach.*  Baxter,  speaking  on  the 
same  subject,  remarks,  that  "  It  is  congruous  to  the  wisdom 
and  governing  justice  of  God,  that  the  same  body  which  was 
partaker  with  the  soul  in  sin  and  duty,  should  be  partaker 
with  it  in  suffering  or  felicity."  Works,  vol.  21,  p.  331. 
Howe  advances  the  same  sentiment.  Worhs,  p.  223.  The 
same  sentiment  is  asserted  by  Hilary,  the  deacon.  "  Every 
one  of  us,"  says  he,  "  shall  receive  at  judgment  the  deeds  of 
our  body,  but  we  shall  not  be  adjudged  to  good  or  evil  with- 
out the  body."  Methodius  (apud  QEcumenius  in  loco)  also 
expressly  asserts  that  the  soul  shall  not  receive  its  deserts  as 
a  separate  spirit,  but  through  the  body.     "  'OvSs  yd^  yvf^vri  ^ 

*  "  As  we  have  advanced  in  the  careful  and  candid  examination  of 
the  book,  (the  Anastasis  of  Professor  Bush,)  our  conviction  has  been 
greatly  increased,  not  so  much  of  the  grievousness  of  the  specific 
errors  of  the  work,  as  of  the  intellectual  peculiarity,  may  we  say  infir- 
mity, apparent  on  its  pages.  Of  our  men  of  extensive  and  varied 
learning,  our  eloquent  writers,  and  our  devoted  and  successful  scho- 
lars,  he  is  certainly  among  those  who  hold  the  fewer  qualifications  for 
appreciating  and  presenting  '  the  inevitable  deductions  of  reason,''  " 
Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review,  for  January  1845,  p.  179. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  303 

<\^}X^i  *aX2ta  fiid  tov  cfcjjwaT'oj  xofii^stac  ravfa."  Theodoret, 
Theophylact,  and  Chrysostom  assert  precisely  the  same 
doctrine.  But  it  is  needless  to  refer  to  instances,  for  such  is 
the  general  sentiment  of  the  Christian  church:  and  we  are 
willing  that  the  reader  should  decide  whether  the  foregoing 
writers,  at  least  had  not  some  claims  to  the  knowledge  of  what 
sound  reason  teaches,  or  whether  Professor  Bush  has  wholly 
monopolized  that  precious  commodity. 

4.  The  singular  assertions  in  the  foregoing  quotation  from 
our  author,  to  the  effect  that  sin  may  be  properly  "  punished 
in  the  spiritual  body,"  &c.,  harmonize  charmingly  with  that 
leading  feature  of  his  theory,  that  the  wicked  never  enter 
the  resurrection-state,  or  are  raised  from  the  dead.  The 
spiritual  body,  says  he,  belongs  only  to  the  righteous,  for 
the  wicked  never  rise:  and  yet,  when  pressed  with  a  text 
that  contradicts  this,  he  can  freely  present  the  wicked  with 
a  resurrection  or  spiritual  body,  in  order  that  they  may  be 
punished  in  it,  for  the  sins  they  committed  in  the  material 
body.  Such  is  the  way  in  which  he  perpetually  contradicts 
himself. 

V.  The  next  passage  is  one  of  great  importance  in  this 
discussion,  and  we  shall  present  both  the  original  and  trans- 
lation.    We  quote  the  text  of  Griesbach. 

1  Thess.  iv.  13-17. 

GR,  ENG.  VERS. 

Ov  ^sxofisv  ^e  vfiag  wyvoelv,  But  I  would  not  have  you 
dSsT-^ot,  Tts^i,  tuv  xsxoifirjfi,£vuiv,  to  be  ignorant,  brethren,  con- 
iva  fjLr]  %vnrja^Si  xa^wj  xai  ol  cerning  them  which  are 
^.oiTtoi  ol  firi  £x°vtti  sKrti^a,  asleep,  that  ye  sorrow  not, 

even  as  others  which   have 

no  hope. 

Et  yd^  ftKStBvofifVt  oVc  'Itj-         For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus 

cov?  d7i£$avs  xai  aviatrj,  ovtu     died  and  rose  again,  even  so 

xai   6   ^foj   tov?   xoLfxrj^svtai    them   also  which    sleep    in 

5ta  tov  'ItjGov  a|t6  avv  avTf^.        Jesus  will   God   bring  with 

him. 
TouT'o  ya^  vf^lv  "Kiyo^Bv  Iv  For  this  we  say  unto  you 
xoy9  xv^Cov-)  oti  rifjiilq  ol  ^wvT'f  j  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that 
ol  7ts^i%£i7i6fi,£voc  eii  fy^v  Tta^ov  we  which  are  alive  and  re- 
atav  tov  xv^vov,  ov  (iri  ^^daufisv  main  unto  the  coming  of  the 
tov^  xoofirj^ivtas.  Lord  shall  not  prevent  them 

which  are  asleep. 


304       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

"Ot'i  avfb?  6  xv^ioj  Iv  xs^sva-  For  the  Lord  himself  shall 

[xa-th  ^v  ^oivij  a^xayyexov,  xal  descend  from  heaven  with  a 

iv  adXTtLyyo   ^sov   xata^ri^Etac  shout,   with  the  voice   of  the 

an;'  ov^avoii,  xdl  ot  vsx^ol  Iv  archangel,     and     with     the 

X^tcft'cp  dvas'tYioov'i ai  rt^Mtov'  trump  of  God;  and  the  dead 

in  Christ  shall  rise  first: 

'"ETtsvta  T^^sli  ot  ^wvT'Ej  ol  Then  we  which  are  alive 

7i£^t%sL7t6[A.svoi^  d/xa  Gvv  avfoL^  and  remain  shall  be  caught 

d^rtayriao/xs^a  Iv   vs^sKavi  stj  up  together  with  them  in  the 

aHavtrjiSiv  Tfov  xv^iov  ££j  ds^a'  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in 

xai   ovVo  Ttdvtots  avv   xv^lc^  the  air ;  and  SO  shall  we  ever 

iaofiE^a.  be  with  the  Lord. 

The  course  which  the  Professor  takes  with  this  passage 
may  be  described  in  a  single  sentence.  He  first  presents  his 
own  exposition;  then  candidly  confesses  that  it  is  not  so 
good  as  the  common  one;  and  then  finally,  to  get  rid  of  the 
testimony  which  the  passage  bears  against  his  theory,  brings 
in  his  exploded  principle  of  accommodation,  and  unhesitat- 
ingly charges  the  apostle  with  being  mistaken.  As  the  pas- 
sage is  a  deeply  important  one  in  this  connexion,  we  shall 
follow  him  throughout  his  exposition  of  it,  though  first,  we 
shall  present  a  brief  critical  view  of  its  import. 

"We  wish  you  not  to  be  ignorant,  says  the  apostle,  of 
the  condition  of  those  who  are  asleep,  (i.  e.  of  believers  who 
have  died;)  and  you  will  then  know  that  there  is  no  reason 
why  you  should  sorrow  respecting  them,  as  unbelievers  or 
Pagans  do,  who  have  no  hope  that  their  friends  who  die 
will  ever  rise  again  from  the  dead."  That  this  is  the  idea 
of  Paul  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the  Pagan  world  did 
believe,  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  As  an  illustration 
of  this  the  reader  may  refer  to  the  quotation  from  Cicero, 
a  page  or  two  back.  The  Christian  knowing  that  the 
separate  state  of  the  soul  is  an  imperfect  state,  would  sor- 
row indeed,  if  there  was  no  hope  of  a  reunion  of  the  soul 
with  the  body.  Hence  as  a  ground  of  consolation  against 
any  such  apprehensions,  which  the  speculations  of  disguised 
Sadducees  might  have  engendered,  the  apostle  continues : 
"  For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  our  Head  died  and  rose  again, 
why,  this  admitted  fact  should  teach  us  that  in  like  manner 
they  who  sleep  in  Jesus  (i.  e.  his  members  who  have  died,) 
shall  God  raise  with  him  the  Head,  because  the  Head  can- 
not be  perfect  without  the  members."     That  ayw,   here, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEPENDED.  305 

means  bring  from  the  grave,  and  not  merely  from  heaven, 
as  it  is  constantly  explained,  is  clear  to  my  own  mind ;  for 
the  word  means  to  lead  forth,  or  out  of  as  to  its  primary 
sense,  and  metaphorically,  to  incite  or  quicken.  Thus  in 
Rom.  viii.  14,  "  As  many  as  are  quickened  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,"  &c.  See  also  Gal.  v.  18,  and  2  Tim.  iii.  6,  ''Ex- 
cited by  divers  lusts."  So  also  the  LXX.  *'  A  fools  lips 
awaken  or  quicken  him  to  wickedness."  Prov.  xviii.  6. 
Thus  also  those  who  are  asleep  when  Jesus  comes,  God 
shall  lead  forth  (i.  e.  their  souls  from  heaven  and  their  bo- 
dies from  the  grave,)  with  him,  as  Jesus  himself  arose  from 
the  state  of  the  dead.  "And  those  who  are  alive  and  re- 
main until  period  of  the  Lord's  coming,"  says  Paul,  "  shall 
not  anticipate  those  who  are  then  dead,"  i.  e.  they  shall 
neither  be  changed,  nor  rapt  into  the  clouds  before  them. 
This  he  asserts  by  the  special  command  of  the  Lord.  He 
then  continues,  with  a  description  of  the  advent,  and  a  more 
particular  description  of  the  scenes  to  which  he  had  just  re- 
ferred. "  The  Lord  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout, 
and  the  voice  of  the  archangel  and  the  trump  of  God  ;*  and 
frst  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  arise ;  and  then  we  who  are 
alive  and  have  remained  until  that  time  shall  be  caught  up 
along  with  them  (and  of  course,  therefore,  as  I  have  just 
said,  we  shall  not  anticipate  them,)  to  meet  the  Lord."  The 
rendering  of  the  phrase  ol  vsx^oi  iv  X^iat^  dvaa-f^aovtav 
Tt^Mtov,  by  *'  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  frst,^^  is  plainly 
inaccurate:  for  this  phrase  is  not  contrasted  with  the  rest  of 
the  dead  (as  this  rendering  would  imply,)  but  simply  with 
the  clause  T^fitc^  ol  ^wj/fsj,  we  who  are  alive.  There  is  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  resurrection  of  others  at  this  time ; 
and  there  is  no  other  antithesis  than  that  expressed  above; 
first  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  arise ;  then,  (that  is,  the  next 
event  that  will  take  place,  iTtfti'a,)  they  who  are  alive  shall 
be  caught  up  along  with  the  raised  saints,  and  there  being 
changed,  they  shall  ever  be  with  the  Lord.     Such  is  a  plain 

*  This  is  a  hebraeism  for  the  great  trumpet.  See  Matt,  xxiv.  31.  So 
also  Job  i.  16,  "the  fire  of  God,"  means  a  great  fire,  See  also  Gen. 
X.  9;  Jonah  iii.  3;  Luke  i.  6;  Acts  vii.  20;  1  Sam.  xx,  12;  Gen.  xxx. 
8;  Ps.  Ixviii.  16,  and  xxxvi.  7,  and  Ixxx.  11;  Is.  xxviii.  2,  &c.  The 
Hebrews,  Greeks,  &c.  convoked  their  assemblies  by  sound  of  trumpet, 
and  hence  when  God  convokes  men  he  is,  in  an  appropriate  figure  of 
speech,  said  to  do  it  with  a  trumpet.  See  Ps.  xlvii.  5;  Is.  xxvii.  13  j 
Jer,  iv.  5,  and  vi.  1;  Hos.  v.  8;  Joel  ii.  1,  dtc 


306       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

and  brief  exposition  of  the  leading  thoughts  in  this  magnifi- 
cent passage,  and  we  shall  now  hear  what  our  friend  the 
Professor  has  to  offer  in  view  of  it. 

After  observing  that  "  the  general  scope  of  this  passage  is 
obviously  to  minister  consolation  to  those  addressed,  under 
the  grief  arising  from  the  death  of  Christian  friends,"  our 
author  proceeds  to  reiterate  the  declaration  that  Paul  and  the 
other  apostles,  with  the  mass  of  Christians,  anticipated  the 
coming  of  Christ  here  referred  to,  "  in  the  lifetime  of  that 
generation."  We  have  already  refuted  this  assertion ;  and  if 
the  reader  would  see  it  fully  disposed  of,  and  the  real  ten- 
dency of  such  a  view  exposed  in  a  masterly  manner,  let  him 
refer  to  Part  I.  Chapter  II.  of  the  "  Miscellaneous  Observa- 
tions" of  President  Edwards,  Works,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  221-227. 
He  next  repeats  the  assertion,  that  by  the  phrase  "  for  this  w^ 
say  to  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  Paul  merely  means 
to  repeat  what  Christ  had  declared  in  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31;  a 
sentiment  as  destitute  of  propriety  a-s  it  is  of  proof;  and  only 
uttered  to  shield  his  theory  from  the  direct  testimony  afforded 
by  this  passage  against  it.  For  even  if  a  direct  and  present 
revelation  to  Paul  of  the  truth  here  announced  is  not  to  be 
supposed  (which  is  far  from  being  the  fact),  there  is  no  more 
reason  to  say  that  he  repeats  what  Christ  says  in  Matt,  xxiv., 
than  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to  say  as  Piscator  remarks, 
"  I  announce  this  from  the  word  which  I  heard  from  Christ 
himself,  when  I  was  rapt  into  the  third  heaven."  2  Cor.  xii. 
2.  4.  Osiander  (Dr.  Lucas)  paraphrases  the  passage,  "  This 
we  say  to  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  we  do  not  recite 
our  own  opinions  in  this  matter,  but  the  word  of  God,  which 
you  ought  to  believe :"  and  it  surely  is  preposterous  to  assert 
that  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  31,  contains  what  is  here  asserted  by 
Paul  in  1  Thess.  iv.  13-17.  Grotius  expresses  the  precise 
idea  of  the  words,  "  This  we  say  hy  the  command  of  Christ, 
ex  mandato  Christi:"  with  which  Beza  (in  loco)  agrees,  "  In 
nomine  Domini,  et  quasi  eo  ipso  loqvente.^^ 

Our  author  next  remarks  that  "  in  the  general  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  a  serious  embarrassment  arises  from  the 
difficulty  of  determining  the  precise  import  of  aitt,  will 
bring."  But  we  have  exhibited  the  import  of  this  term  al- 
ready; and  if,  in  addition  to  the  instances  already  presented, 
the  Professor  will  turn  to  Acts  xiii.  23,  he  will  find  the  word 
translated  ''raised."  See  also  the  LXX.  in  Zech.  iii.  8. 
Many  other  instances  of  like  usage  can  be  specified :  but  if 


JT^      OT  THE 

f/    -.-.  *  t-  -r  ^  «?.  T  T 

ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDBpi^    ^  307 

the  Professor  will  only  look  at  the  antithesis,  he  will  find  that 
it  requires  this  sense:  "For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died 
and  rose  again,  even  so  them  also  that  sleep  in  Jesus  will 
God  raise,  or  quicken,  with  him."  Sleep,  here,  is  the  corre- 
lative of  died;  and  rose  again  the  correlative  of  altc,  in  the 
two  cases  mentioned,  to  wit,  that  of  Christ  and  his  members. 
He  died,  and  they  die ;  he  arose  again  by  divine  power,  they 
shall  also  rise  again  by  the  power  of  God.  There  is  no 
"  difficulty"  here,  only  in  the  attempt  of  the  Professor  to  re- 
concile this,  statement  with  his  theory.  God,  who  brought 
Christ  from  the  dead  (Heb.  xiii*20),  will  also  bring  from  the 
dead  those  who  sleep  in  him,  so  that  the  members  shall  be 
quickened  along  with  the  Head. 

If  the  Professor  had  said  that  he  found  great  "  embarrass- 
ment" and  "difficulty"  in  explaining  the  terms  tov^  xoiy-rjOiv 
tas  those  who  sleep,  in  accordance  with  his  theory,  we  should 
have  readily  granted  the  obstacle  to  be  insuperable.  His 
theory-makes  the  dead  saint  not  sleeping  but  awaking;  and 
this  he  expresses  in  so  many  words  in  remarking  on  Ps.  xvii. 
15  (pp.  105-109),  "  I  shall  be  satisfied  when  1  awake  with 
thy  likeness."  This  awaking,  says  he,  is  the  entrance  upon 
the  resurrection-stale  at  death.  When  the  believer  is  raised 
from  the  dead,  he  is  therefore  neither  dead  nor  asleep,  but 
truly  and  properly  awake.  How,  then,  can  all  these  saints 
of  whom  Paul  here  speaks,  be  asleep  when  Christ  comes, 
when,  according  to  the  Professor,  they  are  awake  and  already 
raised  from  the  dead  ? 

These  remarks  will  enable  the  reader  fully  to  appreciate 
the  following  laboured  criticism  of  Professor  Bush,  in  which 
he  gives  one  of  the  most  ludicrous  perversions  of  language 
that  1  have  lately  met  with.  After  making  the  following  obser- 
vation, (founded  on  his  erroneous  view  of  ay«)  "  But  here  an 
objection  would  at  once  occur — How  can  they  come  with  him, 
unless  previously  they  were  with  him?"  he  says  (pp.  266, 267), 
"  This  natural  query  the  apostle  proceeds  to  obviate  in  the  sen- 
tence that  follows:  'The  dead  in  Christ  (i.  e.  those  that  have 
slept  in  him)  shall  rise  first,' i.e.  shall  rise, or  shall  have  arisen, 
previously.  That  this  is  a  probable  sense  of  7i^C:,tov=Tt^6'fs^ov, 
in  this  connexion,  may  be  shown  by  an  appeal  to  the  vsus 
loquendi  in  the  following  passages:  Matt.  v.  24,  "Leave 
there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way,  ftrst  {rc^iZtov, 
previously)  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,"  &c.  Matt.  xii.  29, 
"  How  can  one  enter  into  a  strong  man's  house  and  spoil  his 


308       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

goods,  except  he  first  (yt^wfov,  previously)  bind  the  strong  . 
man?'  Mark  ix.  11,  12,  '  Why  say  the  scribes  that  Elias 
must  ^rs^  (rt^w-rov,  previously)  come?  And  he  answered 
and  told  them,  Elias  verily  cometh^rsi  (rt^wrov,  previously) 
and  restoreth  all  things.'  2  Thess.  ii.  ;3,  '  For  that  day  shall 
not  come  except  there  come  a  falling  away  first  (n^^tovy  pre- 
viously).^ 1  Tim.  iii.  10,  '  And  let  these  also  first  (rt^Cjtov, 
previously)  be  proved.'  The  evidence,  therefore,  may  be 
considered  strong,  that  this  is  the  true  sense  of  the  term  in 
this  connexion,  and  the  clause,  being  thrown  in  for  the  pur- 
pose of  meeting  a  tacit  objection,  ought  to  have  been  enclosed 
in  a  parenthesis.  The  whole  passage  will  then  read  thus  : — 
'  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a 
shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
God  (and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  have  previously  arisen) ; 
then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  to- 
gether with  them  in  the  clouds  {iv  v£q>£%aii,  in  clouds,  i.  e.  in 
multitudes,  as  the  article  is  wanting),  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the 
air.'  The  phrase  a/ta  6vv  avfot j  d^ytayiytjo^f ^a,  shall  be  caught 
up  together  with  them,  means  not  on  this  view  so  properly 
that  we  shall  be  caught  up  in  company  with  them — for  how 
could  they  be  caught  up  when  they  were  already  descending 
with  Christ  from  heaven? — but  simply,  we  shall  be  caught 
up  to  be  with  them^ 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  clause  which  is  the  basis 
of  this  huge  display  of  criticism  and  learning,  means  simply 
that  '■^ first  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise,  then  the  living  shall 
be  caught  up  along  with  them  in  the  air :"  and  I  am  most 
happy  to  be  able  to  give  the  authority  of  the  great  Winer 
substantially  in  support  of  this  criticism.  He  remarks  that 
the  dead  in  Christ  are  not  here  contrasted,  by  the  apostle, 
with  *'  the  Jewish  or  Pagan  dead,"  i.  e.  the  rest  of  the  dead, 
but  that  "  the  contrasted  clause  is  ^^f  15  ot  ^wi^f  ??,  we  who  are 
alive.  See  '^Idioms  of  the  New  Testament,^''  Part  IH.  §  19. 
And  yet  upon  the  foregoing  poor  misconstruction  of  the 
passage,  our  author  builds  his  astounding  criticism.  He  does 
not,  however,  venture  to  explain  how  the  risen  saints  are  both 
asleep  and  awake,  (as  his  theory  makes  them,)  at  the  same 
time. 

But  as  a  matter  of  Scripture  criticism  and  New  Testa- 
ment usage,  the  foregoing  remarks  of  the  Professor  are 
most  unfortunate  for  his  repuation :  for  in  not  one  instance 
which  he  adduces  as  a  parallel  usage,  is  the  usage  at  all 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  309 

parallel.  1.  In  the  passage  before  us,  Tt^^'tov  is  used  in 
enumeration — the  common  style  of  Paul's  enumeration, 
Ti^Mtov,  primum,  first;  and  immediately  following  it,  is  the 
sTtsita^  deindCt  then;  see  instances  of  this  usage  in  1  Cor. 
xii.  28,  and  xv.  46,  and  Heb.  vii.  2,  27;  compare  also  1  Cor. 
XV.  5,  7,  23.  And  yet,  in  not  one  of  the  instances  ad- 
duced by  Professor  Bush,  is  sTtsita  found  1  2.  And  then 
again :  In  the  instances  before  us,  7ie,^tov  is  simply  used  in 
enumeration,  as  above  remarked;  but  in  the  instances*  ad- 
duced by  our  author,  it  is  used  for  Tt^otf^ov,  or  pro  com- 
parativo.  Professor  Bush  ought  to  know  better  than  to  in- 
dulge in  such  preposterous  criticism.  It  might  have  done 
five  hundred  years  ago;  but  it  is  in  this  age  a  most  un- 
happy illustration  of  the  proposition,  that  "  the  knowledge 
of  Revelation  is  progressive." 

Upon  such  a  basis  the  Professor  follows  up  his  conclu- 
sions to  the  end  of  his  exposition  on  p.  268 ;  and,  after  as- 
serting that  aytatj  in  Jude  14,  must  refer  to  raised  saints, 
instead  of  holy  ones  or  angels,  agreeably  to  the  repeated 
announcements  of  the  Saviour  himself.  Matt.  xiii.  41,  and 
xvi.  27,  and  xxiv.  31 ;  Mark  viii.  38,  and  xiii.  27;  Luke  ix. 
26,  and  xii.  8,  9,  (and  agreeably,  also,  to  the  reading  of 
some  MSS.  ixv^tdaiv  dytov  dyyiT^w,  or  dyye'xwv  without  the 
adjective,  as  others  have  it,)  he  caps  the  climax  as  follows : 

"  With  these  prophetic  intimations  familiar  to  his  mind,  it 
was  not  unnatural  that  he  should  speak  of  Christ's  being 
accompanied  on  his  return  to  earth  with  these  glorified 
legions  of  saints ;  and  if  this  view  be  admitted  as  sound, 
it  will  perhaps  afford  the  true  key  to  his  language,  1  Cor. 
XV.  35:  ''  How  are  the  dead  raised,  and  with  what  body  do 
they  come?''  i.e.,  not  with  what  body  do  they  come  up  out 
of  the  ground,  but  with  N^'hat  body  do  they  come  down  from 
heaven?" 

What  the  reader  will  think  of  this,  in  connexion  with  the 
Professor's  note,  p.  265,  in  which  he  admits  that  all  the 
apostles  and  primitive  Christians  believed  that  the  resur- 
rection would  take  place  at  the  second  advent,  is  easy  to 
imagine;  but  we  pass  it  to  make  a  single  remark  upon 
his  use  of  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.     Paul  asserts  that  the 

*  All  except  the  last,  in  which  it  is  used  in  enumeration  with  the 
corresponding  term  iIta.  The  proper  rendering  of  the  passage  is, 
«'  And,  Jirstj  let  these  be  proved,  then  let  them,  &c.,  if  found  blame- 
less." 


310  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

language  here  quoted  by  the  Professor  is  the  language  of 
"a  fool,''^  and  the  Professor  very  obligingly  makes  Paul 
himself  the  author  of  it,  and  thinks  he  has  found  "  the  true 
key  to  his  language."  This  would  appear  to  be  something 
more  than  charging  the  apostle  with  being  mistaken,  espe- 
cially as  the  Professor  is  serious  in  attributing  it  to  him. 
In  §  3,  sub-section  IV.,  above,  we  have  fully  explained  this 
passage,  and  have  shown  that  the  Professor's  view  is  a 
sheer  perversion  from  the  fact,  1.  that  the  questions  here 
are  one,  the  bh  being  used  simply  to  give  force  to  the  repe- 
tition of  the  interrogation,  and  not  to  connect  together  two 
distinct  queries.  Observe  with  what  force  it  clothes  the 
repetition  of  the  interrogation  in  2  Cor.  vi.  14-16.  And, 
then,  2.,  as  we  have  shown  above,  the  Professor's  view 
cannot  be  the  import  of  the  question  of  the  a^^ov  or  fool, 
for,  though  Paul  professes  to  answer  the  query,  he  no 
where  states  what  bodies  the  dead  will  have  "  when  they 
come  down  from  heaven ;"  and  hence,  it  is  clear,  that  such 
a  question  is  not  here  proposed  to  him.  And,  finally,  the 
Professor  makes  the  question  to  be,  "  with  what  bodies  do 
the  dead  come  down  from  heaven?"  It  is  strange  that 
even  the  wording  of  this  did  not  show  him  its  absurdity, 
according  to  his  theory.  For  according  to  the  Professor, 
when  the  dead  come  down  from  heaven,  they  are  not  dead, 
any  more  than  we  are,  and  not  as  much;  for  they  have 
been  raised  from  the  dead,  says  he.  And  to  call  them 
dead,  therefore,  is  preposterous. 

But  the  Professor  is  not  satisfied  with  his  exposition  of 
this  text  as  he  very  candidly  admits  in  the  following  pass- 
age, to  which  we  invite  the  special  attention  of  the  reader. 
He  says,  "  The  foregoing  interpretation,  it  will  be  seen,  de- 
pends upon  the  correctness  of  the  idea  assumed  in  the  outset, 
that  alft,  iDill  bring,  refers  to  the  descent  of  Christ  at  the 
era  of  the  second  coming.  That  this  is  not  a  violent  suppo- 
sition we  are  well  persuaded ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  we 
are  constrained  to  acknowledge  that,  taken  in  the  connexion, 
it  does  not  strike  one  as  quite  so  natural  and  obvious  as  that 
which  is  involved  in  the  common  rendering,  which  repre- 
sents it  as  a  mere  continuous  announcement  of  the  order  of 
events.  There  is,  perhaps,  a  more  unforced  air  of  proba- 
bility in  the  construction,  which  makes  the  writer  to  say 
that,  as  God  intends  to  have  his  people  ultimately  with  him, 
as  well  as  Christ  their  head,  so  one  great  object  of  his  second 


ASSERTED  AND  DErENDED.  311 

coming  might  well  be  represented  to  be  to  gather  home  his 
sleeping  and  living  saints  in  one  united  company,  the  first 
class  to  be  reclaimed  from  the  power  of  the  grave  in  which 
they  had  been  resting,  and  the  other  to  be  translated,  which 
would  of  course  bring  them  into  the  same  condition  with  that 
of  the  risen  dead.  Accordingly,  in  pursuing  the  thread  of  the 
announcement,  he  may  be  considered  as  saying,  that  the  first 
step  will  be  to  raise  the  sleepers  in  the  dust,  and  invest  them 
with  their  resurrection  bodies.  When  this  is  accomplished, 
he  will  immediately  proceed  {luei'ta',  then)  to  work  that  stu- 
pendous transformation  upon  the  iiviug  saints  which  shall  fit 
them  for  entering  into  a  spiritual  kingdom;  and  this  effected, 
both  classes  shall  be  caught  together  (a/<a)  in  clouds,  or  vast 
numbers,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air.  Our  own  view  of  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  would  be  better  subserved 
by  the  other  exposition,  but  we  feel  not  at  liberty  to  put  the 
least  constraint  upon  the  out-speaking  purport  of  any  text, 
and  therefore  do  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  a  very  high  de- 
gree of  probability  marks  this  latter  construction.  Conse- 
quently we  do  not  refuse  to  abide  by  it."  pp.  268-9. 

This  frank  and  candid  acknowledgment  is  honourable 
alike  to  the  head  and  heart  of  Professor  Bush ;  and  it  affords 
encouraging  ground  to  hope  that  upon  a  resurvey  of  his 
theory,  and  of  the  criticisms  by  which  he  has  attempted  to 
sustain  it,  he  will  see  it  to  be  utterly  untenable,  and  absurd; 
and  will  be  no  longer  willing  to  stake  his  well-earned  repu- 
tation upon  an  attempt  to  maintain  the  illegitimate  offspring 
of  a  mere  wayward  fancy,  even  though  they  have  presented 
themselves  to  him,  and  appealed  to  his  generous  sympathies, 
as  the  lawfully  begotten  but  needy  children  of  reason  and 
true  philosophy. 

Afier  an  acknowledgment  like' this,  the  reader  will  per- 
haps wonder  what  the  Professor  will  do.  He  "  does  not 
refuse  to  abide  by"  the  common  construction  of  this  passage, 
and  consequently,  there  is  but  one  alternative  lefl : — Profes- 
sor Bush  or  the  apostle  Paul  must  he  mistaken.  Few  men 
would  have  the  moral  courage  to  acknowledge  so  formida- 
ble a  controvertist  as  Paul  to  be  their  antagonist,  and  hence 
they  generally  endeavour  to  prove  that  he  agrees  with  them  ; 
but  not  so  our  author.  Apostle  or  no  apostle,  if  his  judgment 
does  not  accord  with  "  the  inevitable  deductions  of  reason," 
the  Professor  is  willing  to  measure  swords  with  him,  and  to 
maintain  that  he  is  mistaken.     And  so  it  is  here.     He  first 


312  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

repeats  the  assertion  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  accommo- 
dated their  teaching  to  the  Jewish  errors,  and  then  he  repeats 
the  assertion,  (which  is  at  direct  war  with  this  idea),  that 
the  apostles  were  themselves  mistaken  in  their  views  of  the 
time  and  events  of  the  second  advent.  These  things  have, 
however,  been  fully  discussed  by  us  already,  and  we  need 
say  but  little  or  nothing  of  them  here.  I  consider  the  asser- 
tion that  the  apostles  were  mistaken,  however,  to  be  a  dan- 
gerous error,  and  (to  adopt  the  language  of  Whitby  in  loco,) 
"  highly  prejudicial  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  authority 
of  the  apostles;  for  if  the  churches  of  Christ  had  once  re- 
ceived of  them  the  doctrine  in  question,  and  afterwards  had 
understood,  even  from  their  own  confession  that  it  was  a 
mistake,  this  would  have  naturally  led  them  to  conceive  that 
they  might  have  mistaken  also  in  any  other  doctrine  con- 
tained in  their  epistles,  and  so  suspect  the  certainty  and  truth 
of  all  that  was  contained  in  them."  The  passage  in  2  Thess. 
ii.  1,  2,  plainly  imports  that  in  Paul's  own  judgment,  the 
belief  that  the  apostles  had  taught  the  doctrine  attributed  to 
them  by  Professor  Bush,  would  tend  to  the  unsettling  of  their 
minds  in  the  faith  of  the  Gospel. 

The  Professor  also  thinks  that  the  doctrine  of  the  "  New 
Jerusalem  state"  "  presents  an  insuperable  bar  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  popular  construction  of  Paul's  language;"  at  the 
same  time  that  he  admits  that  Paul  himself  believed  what 
the  popular  construction  attributes  to  him.  Now  what  are 
we  to  make  of  this?  The  Professor  admits  that  Paul  asserted 
what  he  thought  to  be  true;  and  yet  presents  what  he  deems 
"an  insuperable  bar"  to  construing  the  language  as  Paul 
meant  it!  This  is  in  advance  of  even  the  argument  from 
reason  itself.  What  advantage  does  the  Professor  think 
would  accrue  from  construing  the  language  as  Paul  con- 
fessedly did  not  mean  it?  But  as  to  the  assertion  itself  that 
there  is  any  such  "  bar"  furnished  by  the  doctrine  of  the 
"'New  Jerusalem  state,"  I  remark  that  it  furnishes  no  such 
obstacle  whatever.  Let  the  Professor  attempt  to  prove  his 
assertion,  and  we  shall  then  show  that  it  is  wholly  un- 
founded. 

Thus  terminates  the  Professor's  luminous  exposition  of 
1  Thess.  iv.  13-17;  and  here  we  shall  close  with  a  refer- 
ence to  a  single  point  that  ought  not  to  be  overlooked,  for  it 
is  important  in  this  connexion.  The  time  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  events  here  mentioned  by  Paul,  is  what  we  refer  to ; 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  313 

and  as  the  Swedenborgians,  Rationalists,  Shakers,  &c., 
maintain  that  the  resurrection  and  final  judgnnent  take  place 
at  death,  this  matter  ought  not  to  be  passed  over  without 
notice.  In  the  phrase,  (ver.  15,)  "  for  we  who  are  alive 
and  remain  until  the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  {shall  in 
no  way  ov  firj,  the  intensive,)  anticipate  them  who  are  sleep- 
ing;" the  precise  point  of  time  is  expressed:  just  on  the  day 
in  which  Christ  will  return  these  things  will  occur.  There 
is  no  evading  this  consequence.  See  the  rule  on  this  sub- 
ject presented  by  Winer  in  his  "  Idioms,"  Part  III.  §  60,  3, 
in  which  he  applies  the  principle  referred  to,  in  elucidation 
of  this  very  passage.  As  his  authority  in  a  matter  of  this 
kind  will  not  be  questioned,  it  is  sufficient  here  merely  to 
refer  to  him.*    ■ 

VI.  The  next  passage  quoted  by  our  author  is  the  follow- 
ing: "  Who  shall  change  our  vile  body  (r6  aCjfia  f/ji  taTtft-v 
Q(j£oj  rj(Jtu)v,)  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious 
body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to 
subdue  all  things  unto  himself."  Phil.  iii.  21,  p.  270.  He, 
however,  should  have  begun  the  quotation  with  ver.  20, 
"  For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven;  from  whence  also  we 
look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  who  shall 
change,"  &c.;  for  this  states  at  what  time,  and  under  what 
circumstances  this  change  is  to  take  place;  and  shows  con- 
clusively, that  it  cannot  be  at  death. 

The  Professor  does  not  attempt  any  exegesis  of  this  pas- 
sage, for  the  singular  {aafxa)  being  clearly  used  for  the 
plural,  presented  him  with  the  alternative  of  either  retracting 
what  he  had  said  on  Rom.  viii.  23,  or  of  calling  the  church 
of  the  Redeemer  "  a  vile  body,"  or  "  the  body  of  our  vile- 
ness  or  humiliation,"  as  the  phrase  means:  and  he  is  not 
very  willing  to  do  either.  His  remarks,  however,  are  very 
brief,  and  the  only  thing  requiring  specific  notice  is  the  fol- 
lowing attempt  at  evasion.     He  says : 

"  Biit,  in  fact,  even  if  the  words  be  taken  as  they  usually 
are,  as  having  reference  to  the  change  that  shall  pass  upon 
the  bodies  of  individual  believers  at  the  last  day,  how  can  it 

*  An.  admirable  view  (in  many  respects,)  of  this  whole  passage 
may  be  found  in  the  supplemental  volume  (Vol.  VII.)  of  the  "  Fratres 
Poloni(B,"  p.  213.  Eleutheropolis,  1692,  by  the  author  of  the  Life  of 
Sooinus,  and  of  the  critical  dissertation  on  his  works,  found  in  those 
volumes. 

27 


314       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

be  shown  that  the  apostle  has  not  rather  in  view  the  transla- 
tion of  the  living,  than  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  saints? 
He  expressly  says  elsewhere,  of  some  whom  he  denomi- 
nates *  we,'  '  that  we  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed.'  And  this  is  to  take  place  at  the  time  of  Christ's 
second  manifestation  from  heaven,  which  we  have  already 
seen  the  apostle  anticipated  as  not  unlikely  to  occur  in  his 
own  day.  Now  the  allusion  in  the  present  passage  is  evi- 
dently to  the  same  time ;  for  he  says  in  the  preceding  verse, 
'  For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven ;  from  whence  also  we 
look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  who  shall 
change,'  &c.  How  then  can  it  be  proved  that  this  '  chang- 
ing the  vile  bodies  '  does  not  concern  the  same  persons  1  In 
other  words,  that  he  speaks  oi^  translation,  and  not  of  resur- 
rection?'' pp.  271-272. 

To  this  I  reply  that  it  can  be  shown  very  easily  and  very 
satisfactorily  that  "  the  apostle  has  not  rather  in  view  the 
translation  of  the  living,  than  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
saints.''  1.  It  can  be  shown  from  Professor  Bush  himself, 
who  on  p.  261,  quotes  this  passage,  and  refers  it  directly  to 
the  resurrection-state  of  believers.  Speaking  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  people  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  not  only  are  their  vile 
bodies  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  but  as 
the  transition,  in  his  case,  from  the  one  into  the  other  was  im- 
mediate, so  likewise  is  it  to  be  in  theirs."  That  is,  as  Christ, 
according  to  the  Professor,  entered  into  the  resurrection-state 
by  an  immediate  transition  at  death,  so  will  believers  at 
death  also  enter  into  that  state.  Hence,  according  to  our 
author,  the  passage  does  not  refer  to  "  the  translation  of  the 
living,  but  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  saints."  2.  We 
prove  it  from  the  fact  that  Paul  asserts  in  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52, 
(as  we  have  shown  in  our  remarks  on  that  passage)  that  we 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but,  whether  alive  or  dead  at  that  time, 
we  shall  all  be  changed:  that  is,  our  vile  bodies  shall  be 
fashioned  like  the  glorious  body  of  Christ.  3.  We  prove  it 
from  the  fact  that  the  apostle  himself  repeatedly  announces 
the  expectation  that  he  will  arise  from  the  dead ;  and  there- 
fore as  he  also  here  declares  that  his  own  body  of  vileness 
shall  be  changed,  he  can  refer  this  only  to  the  resurrection. 
In  1  Cor,  vi.  14,  he  says,  "  God  hath  both  raised  up  the 
Lord,  and  will  also  raise  up  us  by  his  own  power."  And 
2  Cor.  iv.  14,  "  Knowing  that  he  which  raised  up  the  Lord 
Jesus,  shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus,  and  shall  present  us 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  315 

with  you."  4.  We  prove  it  also  by  the  text  itself.  For  *9;^v:i; 
yd^  to  TtoT.i'tevixa  Iv  ov^avoCi  vjtd^x^''i  f^^  ^^^  citizenship 
is  in  heaven,  .(ver.  20,)  stands  in  direct  relation  to  the  ante- 
cedent clause  ot  ta  irtlysia  ^^ovovvts^,  who  pursue  earthly 
things*  "They  do  this,"  says  Paul, "  and  therefore  do  not 
belong  to  the  company  of  believers  who  seek  the  things  of 
heaven,  wlience  {ek  ov  used  as  an  adverb,  unde,)  we,  that 
is,  all  who  are  followers  of  the  Lord,  look  for  the  Saviour, 
who  will  change,"  &c.  If  we  go  to  the  strictness  of  the  let- 
ter, therefore,  as  the  Professor  pretends  to  do  in  the  above 
criticism,  he  himself  being  judge,  the  text  announces  that 
their  vile  bodies  shall  be  changed;  the  vile  bodies  of  at 
least  all  who,  in  distinction  from  the  worldling,  seek  heavenly 
things,  their  vile  bodies  shall  be  changed,  whether  they  are 
then  living  or  dead.  And  the  Professor  will  hardly  say  that 
all  who  were  alive  when  the  apostle  wrote;  young  believers  as 
well  as  the  aged,  expected  to  live  to  see  that  event  which  he 
assured  them  was  not  at  hand:  and  yet  all  who  were  then 
alive,  were  to  have  their  vile  bodies  changed  at  the  time  re- 
ferred to.  5.  And  finally,  as  a  mere  offset  to  the  authority 
of  Professor  Bush,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  Christian 
church  have  ever  referred  the  passage  to  the  change  which 
will  take  place  in  the  bodies  of  believers  after  the  resurrec- 
tion. IrensBUS  remarks,  "  It  is  manifest  what  is  the  body  of 
our  humility — that  it  is  the  body,  which  is  flesh,  which  is 
humbled  by  falling  into  the  earth,  and  which  shall  be  trans- 
formed from  a  mortal  and  corruptible,  into  a  body  which  is 
immortal  and  incorruptible."  Adv.  Hcer.  lib.  V.  c.  13.  See 
also  in  loco  Calvin,  Pareus,  Piscator,  Osiander,  Zanchius, 
Grotius,  Poole  (Annot.)  and  even  Crellius,  Slichtingius,  &c, 
&c.  See  also  Glassius  Philol.  Sac.  Lib.  III.  Tract.  I.  Can. 
VIII. 

VII.  The  last  passage  quoted  by  the  Professor  is  the 
following : 

2  Tim.  ii.  16-19:  "  But  shun  profane  and  vain  babblings: 
for  they  will  increase  unto  more  ungodliness.  And  their 
word  will  eat  as  doth  a  canker:    of  whom  is   Hymeneus 

*  This  whole  passage  may  be  beautifully  illustrated  by  a  reference 
to  other  expressions  in  the  New  Testament.  The  worlding,  says 
Paul,  pursues  earthly  things — earth's  treasures  and  honours ;  the  be- 
liever  pursues  the  things  above :  that  is,  in  the  language  of  our  Sa- 
viour, he  has  his  treasures  laid  vp  in  heaven.  See  Matt.  vi.  20 ;  Luke 
xviii.  22,  &.C.  See  also  Heb.  xiii.  14. 


316       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

and  Philetus ;  who  concerning  the  truth  have  erred,  say- 
ing that  the  resurrection  is  past  already;  and  overthrow  the 
faith  of  some.  Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God  standeth 
sure,  having  this  seal,  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his. 
And,  let  every  one  that  nameth  the  name  of  Christ  depart 
from  iniquity." 

The  object  of  the  Professor  in  referring  to  this  text  is  to  trjr 
to  show  that  he  is  not  a  disciple  of  Hymeneus  and  Philetus  ; 
and  yet  it  is  difficult  to  know  why  he  should  object  to  this, 
since  it  is  certain,  that  if  Paul  was  mistaken  respecting  the 
resurrection,  these  gentlemen  may  certainly  have  had  the 
correct  view  of  the  matter;  and  my  own  impression  is,  that 
they  certainly  had  pretty  much  such  a  view  of  it  as  our 
author  himself  has.*  But  why  should  he  object  to  their 
entertaining  it?  He  thinks,  as  we  have  already  seen  on  a 
former  page,  that  it  was  held  by  the  Pharisees;  and  also  by 
some  heretics  condemned  by  Justin  Martyr;  and  we  know 
that  it  was  entertained  by  the  Gnostics,  whose  views  of 
matter  led  them  to  embrace  it ;  and  by  Manes,  in  the  third 
century;  and  by  Hierax,  also,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
fourth;  and  why  must  it  be  denied  to  poor  Hymeneus  and 
Philetus?  Is  it  because  Paul  condemns  their  view?  But 
the  Professor  says,  that  Paul  himself  had  not  the  right 
view  of  the  matter;  and  how,  therefore,  does  his  condemn- 
ing these  men  prove  that  they  were  mistaken  also?  In 
such  a  case,  would  it  not  rather  be  a  presumption  that  they 

*  Honest  John  Bunyan  says :  "  Then  I  saw  in  my  dream,  that  in 
the  morning  tlie  shepherds  called  up  Christian  and  Hopeful,  to  walk 
with  them  upon  the  mountains :  so  they  went  forth  with  them,  and 
walked  awhile,  having  a  pleasant  prospect  on  every  side.  Then 
said  the  shepherds  one  to  another:  Shall  we  show  these  pilgrims 
some  wonders?  So,  when  they  had  concluded  to  do  it,  they  had 
them  first  to  the  top  of  a  hill,  called  Error,  which  was  very  steep 
on  the  furthest  side,  and  bid  them  look  down  to  the  bottom.  So 
Christian  and  Hopeful  looked  down,  and  saw  at  the  bottom  several 
men  dashed  to  pieces  by  a  fall  that  they  had  from  the  top.  Then 
said  Christian,  What  meaneth  this?  The  shepherds  answered. 
Have  you  not  heard  of  them  that  were  made  to  err  by  hearkening 
to  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  (2  Tim.  ii.  17,  18,)  as  concerning  the 
faith  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ?  They  answered,  Yea.  Then 
said  the  shepherds,  Those  that  you  see  dashed  in  pieces  at  the  bot- 
tom of  this  mountain  are  they;  and  they  have  continued  to  this  day 
unburied,  as  you  see,  for  example  to  others  to  take  heed  how  they 
clamber  too  high,  or  how  they  come  too  near  the  brink  of  this  moun- 
tain.^'— Pilgrim's  Progress,  chap.  xvi. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  317 

were  right?  And  will  the  Professor,  after  attempting  to 
prove  that  Paul  was  mistaken,  noio  come  over  and  agree 
with  him?  This,  certainly,  is  a  strange  piece  of  business, 
to  make  the  best  of  it,  and  it  is  hard  to  tell  what  the  Pro- 
fessor here  would  really  be  at.  I  rather  suppose  that  his 
object,  in  quoting  the  passage,  was  to  forestall  the  obvious 
and  forcible  application  of  it  to  himself  and  his  theory. 

But  it  is  perfectly  plain,  that  the  theory  of  these  here- 
siarchs,  and  that  of  our  author,  must  be,  substantially,  one 
and  the  same.  In  no  sense  of  the  word,  could  ihey  have 
entertained  the  idea,  that  those  who  in  their  time  had  not 
yet  existed,  had  arisen ;  and  hence  their  idea  of  the  re- 
surrection being  past,  could  only  relate  to  those  who  had 
lived,  and  not  to  those  who  should  live  thereafter.  And  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  does  Professor  Bush  hold,  that  the 
resurrection  is  past  already — not  the  resurrection  of  those 
who  are  to  live,  (for  neither  he  nor  Hymeneus  and  Philetus 
could  believe,  that  men  are  raised  from  the  dead  before 
they  are  born,)  but  the  resurrection  of  those  who  have, 
lived.  And  hence  the  Professor  must  be  content  to  trace 
up  his  theoretic  genealogy  to  these  celebrated  characters. 
Of  Philetus  we  know  nothing,  save  what  is  here  men- 
tioned ;  but  Hymeneus  was  a  blasphemer  (Paul  perhaps 
considered  him  such,  in  consequence  of  his  denial  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,)  as  is  mentioned  in  1  Tim.  i.  20, 
and  manifestly  a  companion  of  a  marked  enemy  of  Paul, 
who  is  mentioned  in  the  same  reference.  See,  also,  2  Tim. 
iv.  14, 15.  That  these  men  asserted  that  Paul  taught  errors, 
and  was  mistaken,  &c.,  no  rational  man,  I  think,  can  possi- 
bly question. 

Throughout  the  whole  of  our  examination  of  the  passages 
adduced  by  Professor  Bush,  we  have  seen  that  the  sacred 
writers  assert  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
In  some  places  he  himself  is  obliged  to  confess  it,  and  he 
attempts  to  evade  their  testimony  by  charging  them  with 
being  mistaken,  or  by  a  resort  to  the  exploded  theory  of 
accommodation.  Now  in  the  text  before  us,  Paul  expressly 
announces  that  this  doctrine  is  the  foundation  of  the  revela- 
tion or  truth  of  God — the  Bs^ii'Kioq  'eov  @sov,  the  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel;  for  it  includes,  as  we  have  shown, 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  is  the  corner  stone  of 
Christianity.  In  Heb.  vi.  2,  he  speaks  of  it  in  the  same 
style.  It  is  also  the  faithful  saying  or  the  saying  dignus 
27* 


318       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

Jlde  which  in  v.  11  and  14,  of  the  chapter  before  us,  he 
exhorts  Timothy  to  bear  in  remembrance,  and  by  the  denial 
of  which,  says  he,  the  Christian  faith  is  overturned,  v.  18; 
and  which,  though  Hymeneus  and  Philetus  have  denied, 
yet  this  foundation  remains  steadfast;  having  the  seal  of  as- 
surance that,  as  God  knoweth  who  are  his,  so  he  will  own 
us,  though  these  men  dispute  and  deny  our  doctrine.  And 
hence,  let  every  one  who  nameth  the  name  of  Christ  depart 
from  these  errors  and  falsehoods — for  that  ahixia^  mejans 
falsehood,  will  not  be  disputed;  (see  1  Cor.  xiii.  6;  also, 
where  it  is  directly  held  up  in  contrast  with  a'^TjOsla,  truth. 
See  also  the  LXX.  in  Exod.  xxii.  7;  Psalm  Ixiii.  11;  and 
cvii.  7;  and  cxix.  29,  69,  78,  86,  118,  128,  163;  and  cxliv. 
11;)  and  Priscian  remarks  that  "the  Greeks  and  Latins 
often  use  injustum  pro  falso,"  injustice  for  falsehood.  Such 
is  the  import  of  this  passage  taken  in  its  connexion,  and 
such  the  solemn  admonition  which  it  administers  to  such 
theorisers  as  Professor  Bush.  Slichtingius  sustains  this 
view,  and  remarks  with  great  force  "  The  firm  foundation 
of  God  is  the  gospel  or  doctrine  concerning  the  future  resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  which  is  called  the  foundation,  because 
upon  it  all  Christian  faith  and  piety  are  built."  The  same 
view  is  presented  in  Pol.  Frat.  Vol.  VII.  p.  261;  and  by 
Whitby  in  loco.     See  also  Calvin's  excellent  note  in  loco. 

SECTION  VIII. 

Containing  references  to   a   multitude  of  important  passages 
which  Professor  Bush  has  omitted  to  notice. 

In  concluding  his  examination  of  the  foregoing  passages. 
Professor  Bush  remarks:  "  We  have  now  gone  over  all  the 
important  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  usually  cited 
as  proving,  either  by  direct  assertion  or  plain  implication, 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body;"  (p.  273,)  and 
we  have  accompanied  him  patiently  through  his  examina- 
tion of  the  whole  of  them.  But  as  Professor  Bush  has  not 
adduced  "  all  the  important  passages  usually  cited  as  prov- 
ing^^  this  doctrine,  I  shall,  in  conclusion,  make  a  passing 
reference  to  a  iew  of  those  which  he  has  omitted ;  for  an  exten- 
sive criticism  of  each,  after  the  preceding  lengthened  exami- 
nation, would  hardly  be  in  place. 
.1.  The  resurrection  of  the  body  is  clearly  implied  in  Matt. 


ASSERTED    AND    DEPENDI5D.  319 

xii.  41,  42:  "The  men  of  Nineveh,  and  the  Queen  of  the 
South  shall  rise  in  judgment  with  this  generation  and  shall 
condemn  it,  avaGtYioovtai  Iv  i'^  x^lasi  fxsta  tri<i  yfvea^  'ta.vtri^-, 
xai  xatax^t,voi6iv  avtr^v.  (See  also  chap.  xi.  21-24.)  Here 
the  rising  up  is  future,  and  of  course  it  has  not  yet  taken 
place.  And  if  the  men  of  Nineveh  are  to  arise  from  the 
dead  with  that  generation,  it  is  a  plain  consequence  that  all 
the  dead  are  yet  to  arise. 

2.  In  Luke  xiv.  14,  Christ  speaking  of  such  as  prove 
themselves  to  be  true  receivers  o^  his  doctrine,  and  imita- 
tors of  his  example,  says  "  Thou  shalt  he  recompensed  at 
the  resurrection  of  the  just."  This  most  clearly  defines  this 
resurrection  to  be  one  event,  and  not  a  continued  series  of 
events.  The  word^ws^  is  plural,  t^v  Stxat'tov,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just  ones,  while  resurrection  itself  is  singular,  'tv 
tri  avaatciosi.  Hence  it  is  not  a  series  of  resurrections,  as 
Professor  Bush's  theory  makes  it;  but  one  single  event,  here- 
after to  take  place,  avtaTtododriastao  aoL,  at  which  time  all  the 
righteous  ones  shall  arise. 

3.  In  John  v.  21,  Jesus  says,  "  For  as  the  Father  raiseth 
the  dead,  and  giveth  them  life,  (^looTtoift,)  so  also  the  Son 
maketh  alive  whom  he  will."  Now  the  word  for  dead  here 
is-  vsx^ov?,  with  the  article;  the  same  word  that  is  used  in 
ver.  25,  and  the  import  of  which  is  explained  in  ver.  28,  29, 
by  the  phrase  ot  h  tols  np^ixsloi^  who  are  in  their  graves. 
The  word  for  raiseth  is  sysC^si,  the  same  word  which  the 
aposlle  employs  in  1  Cor.  xv.  52-54,  which  can  leave  no 
doubt  as  to  its  import.  In  the  passage  before  us,  the  present 
tense  is  put  for  the  future,  a  common  idiom,  where  the  writer 
or  speaker  would  denote  a  yet  future  action  as  one  which  will 
certainly  take  place,  see  Matt.  xxvi.  2 ;  John  vii.  42,  and  xxi. 
23,  and  xiv.  3,  &c.  The  dead,  here,  according  to  this  pas- 
sage, could  not  have  been  raised  at  death,  as  is  plain  upon 
the  very  face  of  it,  and  therefore  the  theory  which  asserts  that 
they  were,  is  false.  So,  too,  in  the  time  of  Christ  "  Abraham 
was  dead,  and  the  prophets  were  dead,"  see  John  viii.  52,  53. 
But  if  they  were  then  dead,  they  had  not  entered  upon  the 
resurrection  state  or  been  raised  from  the  dead,  as  Professor 
Bush  asserts. 

4.  That  Paul  taught  the  literal  resurrection  of  the  body,  is 
plain  also  from  Acts  xvii.  32 :  "  But  when  they  heard  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  (avdataaw  vtx^Mv)  some  mocked," 
&c.     The  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ; 


320      THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

but  that  the  Athenians  understood  avdataais  to  be  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  (implying  also  a  resurrection  of  the  bodies 
of  the  dead  who  were  to  be  judged,  see  ver.  31,)  is  too  plain 
to  be  doubted.  The  Greeks  fully  believed  in  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul.  The  doctrines  of  Plato  were  familiar  to 
them;  see  also  Cicero's  Tusc.  Quoest.  lib.  I,,  and  his  De 
Senectute  subjinem;  see  also  Augustine  Civit.  Dei,  lib.  13,  c. 
16.  The  Athenians,  therefore,  regarded  favourably  the  doc- 
trine of  the  soul's  immortality;  and  had  Paul  taught  it,  they 
would  not  have  derided  him.  But  they  did  deride  him,  and 
therefore  he  did  not  teach  that  the  resurrection  body  is  elimi- 
nated at  death. 

5.  The  declaration  in  Acts  xxvi.  8,  *'  Why  should  it  be 
thought  a  thing  incredible,  that  God  should  raise  the  dead?" 
{vsx^ovi  iyei^si;)  eviaces  that  men  do  not  rise  from  the  dead 
at  death.  For  what  dead  did  the  apostle  mean?  Not 
merely  Christ,  for  the  word  is  plural.  It  was,  therefore, 
those  who  were  then  dead — dead  men.  And  if  they  were 
then  dead,  they  surely  had  not  been  raised  from  the  dead. 

6.  I  have  also  remarked,  that  in  his  examination  of 
1  Cor.  XV.,  Professor  Bush  omitted  all  notice  of  verse  29; 
"  Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead, 
if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?^^  vrcs^  tuv  vsx^<Zv,  si  6%(o^vsx^ob 
ovx  iysi^ovtai.  The  word  dead  is  repeated  several  times  in 
the  verse;  and,  whatever  was  the  rite  here  referred  to,  it  is 
clear,  that  at  the  time  referred  to,  these  dead  ones  had 
not  yet  arisen  from  the  dead.  Of  course,  therefore,  they 
had  not  arisen  at  death.  Not  even  a  refererice  to  "  old 
Jewish  customs"  will  save  the  Professor  here,  for  this  bap- 
tizing for  the  dead  was  clearly  not  a  Jewish,  but  a  Christian 
practice.* 

*  Perhaps,  after  all,  the  best  of  the  views  taken  of  this  obscure 
passage,  is  that  of  Chrysostom,  in  his  Horn,  in  1  Corinthians,  in  loco. 
•'What,  then,  is  Paul  speaking  of  First,  I  wish  to  remind  jou, 
who  are  initiated,  of  the  response  which  they  who  introduce  you  to 
the  mysteries  bid  you  make,  and  then  I  will  explain  the  words  of 
Paul.  When  we  are  about  to  baptize,  we  bid  the  candidate  say,  / 
believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead;  and  upon  this  faith  we  are 
baptized.  After  we,  together  with  the  rest,  have  confessed  this,  we 
are  let  down  into  the  fountain  of  those  sacred  streams.  Reminding 
them  of  this,  Paul  said,  If  there  be  no  resurrection,  why  art  thou  bop. 
tizedfor  the  dead?  that  is,  the  dead  bodies.  For  with  a  view  to  this 
art  thou  baptized,  believing  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  body,  that  it 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  321 

7.  The  same  view  precisely  is  presented  in  the  words  of 
Christ,  in  Mark  xii.  25,  26;  "When  they  shall  rise  from 
the  dead ;"  "  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise.^^  Here 
Abraham,  (agreeably  to  John  viii.  52,  53,)  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
are  clearly  represented,  (along  with  the  generations  who 
had  lived  before  Christ,)  as  being  the  subjects  of  a  resur- 
rection still  future. 

8.  In  1  Thess.  v.  23,  Paul  prays  that  the  spirit,  and  soul, 
and  body,  (i.  e.,  the  whole  person^)  vfiuv  to  rtvsv/xa  xai  ^ 
•^vxri  xai  to  ow^ita,  (the  singular  being  used  for  the  plural 
throughout,)  might  "  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  com^ 

shall  not  remain  dead.  Thou,  by  thy  words,  (of  confession,)  de- 
clarest  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  &c.  Theodoret  takes,  sub- 
stantially, the  same  view,  and  says:  "But  if  the  body,  being  dead, 
rises  not,  why,  then,  is  any  one  baptized  ?"  So,  also,  most  of  the 
Greek  fathers,  who  regarded  it  as  referring  to  the  resurrection  of  at 
least  all  who  '« died  in  faith." 

If  I  might  be  allowed  briefly  to  suggest  an  exposition  of  this 
locus  vexatissimus  criticorum  in  this  connexion — I  regard  it  as  an. 
instance  of  ellipsis.  "Else  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized  iTrtg 
(t«c  dvAo-rda-ioif)  rZv  vmeZv,  for  the  (resurrection  of  the)  dead,  if  the 
dead  rise  not  at  all?  Wliy  are  they  then  baptized  for  the  (resur- 
rection of  the)  dead  ?"  This  view  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fore- 
going quotations  from  the  Greek  fathers  :  and,  I  think,  it  cannot  be 
objected  to  on  grammatical  or  philological  grounds.  For  uTrsg  in 
such  a  connexion,  certainly  does  not  require  to  be  rendered. or  to 
mean  "for  the  benefit  of:^''  see  2  Thess.  ii.  1;  Acts  xv.  26;  John  vi. 
51,  where  the  meaning  simply  is,  because  of,  on  account  of.  And 
though  these  are  examples  of  the  genitivus  rei,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, that  if  the  ellipsis  be  supplied,  as  above,  the  genitive  there 
ceases  to  be  gen.  pers.,  and  becomes  gen.  rei  strictly.  And  then, 
further,  such  ellipses  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.  See  Luke  ix.  55 ;  "  Ohtt  o'iJ'ctrt  oliou  Trvrj/ustroc  (tUv*)  i<rrt  h/ut'i(. 
1  Thess.  V.  8;  'H^«?  cTe  in/ut^Ac  (i/iot)  ovtk,  &c.,  &c.  And  thus  the 
passage  would  refer  to  the  prospective  resurrection  of  all  who  had 
died,  as  well  as  of  all  who  shou,ld  die  before  Christ's  coming. 

The  reason  why  Paul  employs  the  third  person  "they"  instead  of 
"  why  are  we  then  baptized  for  the  dead,"  is  evident.  In  Christian 
baptism,  at  first,  there  was  no  direct  reference  to  the  resurrection ; 
but  when  even  some  Christians  begun  to  call  that  doctrine  into 
question;  (see  ver.  12,)  the  apostles,  as  they  considered  it,  (in  con- 
nexion with  the  resurrection  of  Christ,)  the  very  foundation-stone  of 
Christianity,  required,  of  later  converts  an  express  admission  of  their 
faith  in  this  doctrine;  and  when  they  w6re  baptized,  reminded  th6m 
that  it  was  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  And  as  this  custom 
thus  commenced  after  the  first  converts  were  baptized,  Paul  says, 
not  "  why  are.  wje,"  but  "  why  are  thei/  baptized  for  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  ail?" 


322  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

ing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  As  this-  is  a  subject  of 
prayer,  (as  the  former  part  of  the  verse  shows,)  by  an 
inspired  apostle,  it  is  a  fair  inference  that,  therefore,  the 
body,  no  less  than  the  soul  and  spirit,  of  the  dead  believer, 
will  exist  at  the  time  of  Christ's  coming. 

9.  In  1  John  iii.  2,  there  is  a  clear  and  invincible  testi- 
mony in  favour  of  the  truth  we  are  defending.  "  Beloved, 
now  are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what 
we  shall  be:  but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear  we 
shall  be  like  him;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is."  Now  if 
Christians  at  death  were  made  like  Christ,  by  entering  at 
once  upon  the  resurrection-state,  this  language  would  be 
utterly  unmeaning,  for  it  is  in  direct  contradiction,  to  such 
a  sentiment.  Christians  are  not  to  be  like  him  therefore, 
(that  is,  their  bodies  are  not  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  his 
glorious  body,)  until  he  appears.  The  time  of  this  change, 
and  its  direct  reference  to  the  period  of  Christ's  coming 
is  clearly  expressed  in  the  Greek.  ^Ou^a/xev  6f,  ott  lav 
^avf^oiO^i  o^otot,  avt^  ioofiiOo.^  &c.  It  cannot  admit  of  a  doubt 
that  iav  here  means  postquam^  or  cwm,  and  the  sense  is 
therefore,  "  For  we  know  that  after  he  appears  we  shall  be 
like  him."  So  too  in  John  xiv.  3,  xal  lav  fio^fvOui,  "  and 
after  I  go,  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come  again," 
&c.  The  particle  is  like  on  of  the  Hebrews,  the  import  of 
which  is  unquestionably  cum,  or  quando,  or  postquam  in 
many  places.  So  in  Gen.  xlvii.  18.  "We  cannot  hide  it 
from  our  Lord  after  that  our  money  is  all  expended,"  and 
in  Gen.  xxxviii.  9,  "  Et  fiebat,  si  veniebat  ad  uxorem  fratris 
sui,"  id  est,  postquam  veniebat  dormiturus  cum  uxore  fratris 
sui.  Also  in  Prov.  iii.  24.  *'  After  that  thou  liest  down, 
thou  shalt  not  be  afraid."  Is.  iv.  4,  "  After  that  the  Lord 
shall  have  washed  away,"  &c.  See  also  Judg.  xxi.  21;  Job 
xiv.  14;  Numb,  xxxvi.  4;  Amos  vii.  2.  This  passage  there- 
fore, itself,  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  entire  rejection  of  all 
Professor  Bush's  speculations. 

10.  An  overwhelming  argument  is  also  found  in  Rev.  xx. 
11-15.  How  Professor  Bush  could  reconcile  it  with  his 
conscience  to  overlook  this  passage  in  a  professed  examina- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  is  more 
than  I  am  able  to  tell.  That  it  cannot  be  omitted  fairly  and 
honestly  is  certain,  for  it  is  one  of  the.  seats  of  the  doctrine. 
The  fact  that  he  professes  to  examine  it  in  connexion  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  judgment,  is  no  justification  of  his  omis- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  323 

sion  of  it  here,  as  is  clear  by  the  fact  of  his  having  in  this 
connexion,  discussed  2  Cor.  v.  10,  which  bears  directly  on 
the  judgment:  and  the  fact  that  the  text  is  a  prophecy,  can- 
not excuse  him,  for,  if  it  is  on  that  account  too  obscure  to  be 
discussed  in  connexion  with  the  resurrection,  it  is  also  too 
obscure  to  be  discussed  in  connexion  with  the  judgment. 
And  as  he  has  nor  ventured  to  offer  an  excuse  for  this  omis- 
sion, the  reader  is  left  to  judge  for  himself,  whether  it  arose 
from  the  fact  that  Professor  Bush  could  not  meet  the  argu- 
ment here  presented. 

The  passage  is  as  follows: 

"And  I  saw  a  great  white  throne,  and  him  that  sat  on  it, 
from  whose  face  the  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away:  and 
there  was  found  no  place  for  them.  And  I  saw  the  dead, 
small  and  great,  stand  before  God;  and  the  books  were 
opened:  and  another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book 
of  life:  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things  which 
were  written  in  the  books  according  to  their  works.  And 
the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it;  and  death  and 
hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them:  and  they 
were  judged  every  man  according  to  their  works.  And 
death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This  is  the 
second  death.  And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the 
book  of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire." 

The  Professor  makes,  however,  a  passing  remark  that 
*'  There  is  not,  that  we  can  perceive,  the  remotest  allusion 
to  bodies  in  the  present  context,"  and  denies  that  >'  the  judg- 
ment here  described  is  a  visible  judgment  in  the  natural 
sphere,  the  subjects  of  which  are  men  restored  to  life  and 
reinvested  with  bodies;^"*  and  supposes  that  the  stupendous 
transactions  here  described,  occur  only  in  "  the  spiritual 
world."  The  heavens  and  earth,  therefore,  according  to 
this  critic  must  be  spiritval,  and  the  great  while  throne  also, 
and  the  sea,  and  hades»  and  the  lake  of  fire,  &c.  Such  is 
the  amount  of  this  attempt  at  evasion. 

The  remark,  however,  that  "ftorfies"  are  not  mentioned 
in  this  passage  is  a  most  unscholarly  remark.  Suppose 
they  are  not  expressly  mentioned,  and  what  then?  Where 
is  "6o6?2/"  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus,  or  of  Jairus'  daughter,  or  of  the  son  of  the  widow 
of  Nain,  or  of  Dorcas,  or  of  those  raised  by  Elijah  and 
Elisha?  They  are  spoken  of  as  dead,  just  as  the  dead  are 
spoken  of  in  this  passage;  and  they  were  said  to  be  raised 


324  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

from  the  dead  without  any  mention  of  their  bodies.  And 
what  would  Professor  Bush  say  of  a  man  who  should  decide 
upon  this  ground  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  &c.  was 
a  spiritual  resurrection?  He  would  have  the  same  kind 
of  feeling  for  such  a  man,  as  he  has,  by  this  criticism  ex- 
cited in  behalf  of  himself 

As  to  the  time  in  which  the  events  here  mentioned  are  to 
occur,  Storr  correctly  remarks  that  "  according  to  Rev.  xx. 
12,  (conf.  V.  11,)  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  will  fall  within 
the  time  in  which  the  earth  shalf  vanish  before  him  that 
sits  upon  the  throne,  tq>vysv  ^  ytj.  After  the  resurrection, 
there  will  be  a  new  earth,  xaivri  y^."  Theol.  B.  III.  §.  61. 
The  passage  itself  clearly  proclaims  this  truth,  whatever 
mysterious  meaning  Professor  Bush  may  try  to  attach  to 
"  earth  and  heaven"  in  this  connexion.  And  therefore,  as 
neither  the  old  earth  has  yet  fled  away,  nor  the  new  one 
been  created^  the  inference  is  plain  that  the  resurrection  of 
"  the  dead,  small  and  great,"  is  yet  to  occur. 

It  is  equally  clear  loo,  that  these  dead  were  truly,  dead, 
and  had  not  therefore  been  raised  from  the  dead  previous 
to  this  event :  hence  they  are  yet  to  be  raised. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  it  is  a  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of 
both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  A  part  of  them  came 
fro7n  the  sea,  and  therefore  their  bodies  were  raised,  for 
Professor  Bush  himself  would  hardly  say  that  the  sea  is  a 
receptacle  for  spirits  or  tertium  quids.  And  then  the  dead 
who  were  raised,  were  judged  out  of  the  books,  that  is,  the 
book  of  life,  and  the  other  books.  Hence  the  wicked  are 
also  raised  because  they  are  here  judged,  and  the  book  of 
life  pertains  only  to  the  righteous.  And  this  further  appears 
from  the  fact  that  all  of  these  raised  dead  who  were  not 
found  written  in  the  book  of  life,  were  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire.     Hence  the  wicked  dead  are  also  raised. 

Thus  clearly  and  fully  does  this  passage  announce,  as  the 
testimony  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  very  doctrines,  which, 
it  is  the  express  design  of  Professor  Bush,  in  his  Anastasis, 
and  more  recent  works,  to  impugn. 

11.  Then  there  are  many  classes  of  passages  to  be  found 
in. the  New  Testament,  which  either  declare  or  imply  the 
same  truths.  All  those  passages,  for  example,  which  speak 
oil  quickening  the  dead,,  and  which  of  course  imply  that  the 
quickening  does  not  take  place  at  death,  but  after  it;  for 
they  are  not  dead  until  after  death.  See  Rom.  iv.  17;  1  Pet. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  325 

iii.  18;  John  v.  21,  &c.  &c.  The  very  application  of  this 
phraseology  to  the  spiritually  dead,  illustrates  its  import. 
The  spiritually  dead  are  not  quickened  at  their  spiritual 
death,  but  after  they  have  thus  died. 

12.  All  those  passages  also,  which  speak  of  believers 
being  dead,  contradict  a  theory  which  asserts  that  they  are 
raised  from  the  dead  "  even  before  they  are  consigned  to 
the  tomb."  See  Rom.  vi.  7.  Thus  says  Christ  to  the  Jews, 
"  Your  fathers  ate  manna  in  the  wilderness  and  are  dead^ 
John  vi.  49,  58;  and  viii.  52.  Now  among  these  fathers 
were  Moses,  and  Aaron,  and  Phineas,  &c.  Moses  is  also 
said  to  be  dead  in  Josh.  i.  2.  And  yet  Professor  Bush  says 
he  had  entered  upon  the  resurrection  state;  that  is,  was  no 
longer  dead.  Thus  too,  "  righteous  Abel"  is  still  declared 
to  be  dead,  Heb.  xi.  4.  See  also  Acts  ii.  29;  Rev.  i.  5. 
Now  Professor  Bush  in  so  many  words  asserts  that  these 
persons  are  as  truly  and  properly  alive,  as  Enoch  and  Eli- 
jah, and  are  as  fully  raised  from  the  dead  as  they  will  ever 
be.  Would  it  be  proper,  therefore,  to  say  of  Enoch  and 
Elijah  that  they  are  dead?  Or  of  the  saints  after  the  con- 
summation of  all  things  that  they  are  still  dead?  And  yet 
according  to  Professor  Bush,  they  will  then  be  no  more 
raised  from  the  dead  than  they  are  now ! 

13.  All  those  passages  which  assert  that  the  dead  shall 
arise,  contradict  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush,  which  asserts 
that  man  rises  at  death;  for  all  such  passages  clearly  assert 
that  it  is  only  after  death  that  the  dead  arise,  because  they 
declare  that  the  present  dead  shall  arise.  John  vi.  40,  44 
45;  Luke  xx.  35,  &c. 

14.  All  the  passages  also  which  teach  that  those  already 
dead  shall  receive  a  recompense  in  the  day'  of  judgment, 
conflict  with  this  theory ;  for  they  announce  the  judgment  to 
be  still  future,  and  therefore  the  dead  are  to  be  raised  to  re- 
ceive their  recompense.  See  e.  g.  Matt.  x.  15,  and  xi.  21-24, 
and  Mark  viii.  38.  So  also  Acts  x.  42,  and  2  Tim.  iv.  1, 
i*efer  to  those  who  will  be  living  when  Christ  comes — and  yet 
at  the  same  time  all  who  had  lived  previously  are  there 
called  the  dead,  who  are  to  be  judged  at  this  same  time.  And 
if  they  are  not  raised  from  the  dead  till  Christ  comes,  they 
certainly  did  not  arise  at  death,  for  many  of  them  will  have 
been  dead  thousands  of  years.  See  also  1  Pet.  iv.  5. 

15.  All  passages  which  clearly  distinguish  between  death 
and  the  resurrection  likewise  conflict  with  a  theory  which 

28 


326  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

confounds  death  and  the  resurrection  as  Professor  Bush's 
does.  The  Professor  has  not  noticed  this  point  in  any  of  the 
passages  which  he  quotes.  See  Mark  xii.  23;  Luke  xx.  33; 
Acts  xxiii.  8  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  12  ;  Matt.  xxii.  31  ;  Acts  iv.  2,  &c. 
In  fact  the  very  phrase  "  resurrection  of  the  dead^^  evinces 
a  distinction  between  death  and  the  resurrection  which  is  en- 
tirely fatal  to  this  theory. 

16.  Finally.  All  those  passages  which  speak  of  men  as 
dead,  making  no  distinction  in  this  respect  between  the  righ- 
teous and  wicked,  (i.  e.  all  are  alike  dead,)  evince  the  false- 
ness of  a  theory  which  asserts  that  one  part,  to  wit,  the  righ- 
teous, are  not  dead,  but  have  been  raised  from  the  dead.  See 
Rom.  vii.  2,  3,  and  v.  15  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  39,  and  xiv.  9.  15,  pas- 
sim, and  Rom.  iv.  17;  2  Cor.  i.  9 ;  Luke  vii.  15,  and  xvi.  30,31; 
Acts  xxvi.  23;  Rom.  x.  7  ;  Col.  i.  18  ;  Heb.  xi.  35,  &c.  &c. 

Jt  will  be  seen  from  this  catalogue  of  passages  that  even 
had  Professor  Bush  succeeded  in  explaining  away  the  texts 
which  he  has  cited  and  criticised,  he  would  have  but  half 
completed  the  work  before  him.  But  we  have  followed  him 
patiently  and  fully  through  his  long  array  of  passages:  and 
of  all  that  he  has  examined  there  is  not  one  but  gives  its  tes- 
timony directly  against  him.  The  evidence  of  this  is  before 
the  reader.  We  have  found  his  attempts  at  exegesis  a  full 
half  century  at  least  behind  the  present  advanced  state  of  the 
science  of  criticism.  And  we  have  not  only  exposed  the  fal- 
lacy of  these  attempts,  but  have  disproved  his  asserted  facts 
ad  nauseam;  while  his  principles  of  criticism  have  been 
shown  to  be  false  in  their  assumption,  neological  in  their  na- 
ture, and  destructive  of  all  true  religion  in  their  tendency. 
The  truth  of  God  requires  us  to  speak  thus  plainly,  and  we 
rejoice  to  find  the  great  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  unharmed 
by  this  assault  upon  it,  and  still  retaining  all  its  long-asserted 
claims  to  be  regarded  as  divine. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  327 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST  CONSIDERED. 

The  transcendent  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
resurrection  cannot  be  overrated,  and  can  scarcely  be  esti- 
mated. "  If  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,"  says  Presi- 
dent Dwight,  (Theol.  Ser.  61,)  "he  was  certainly  the  Mes- 
siah; or,  in  other  words,  whatever  he  declared  himself  to 
be.  His  doctrines,  precepts,  and  life,  were  all  approved  by 
God ;  possess  Divine  authority ;  and  demand,  with  the  obU- 
gatlon  of  that  authority,  the  faith  and  obedience  of  mankind." 
If  he  has  not  arisen,  he  is  not  the  Messiah  ;  his  doctrines  are 
not  divine;  the  apostles  were  deceivers,  or  deceived;  and 
those  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,  have  perished.  With 
whatever  allowance  we  may  therefore  look  upon  errors 
relating  to  other  subjects,  there  can  be  no  allowance  here. 
To  compromise  one  jot  or  tittle  of  what  God  has  said  on  this 
subject,  is  to  peril  the  everlasting  well-being  of  souls,  and  to 
prove  ourselves  apostates  from  the  Gospel  which  he  has  re- 
vealed. To  no  subject,  more  pointedly  than  to  this,  does  the 
awful  language  of  the  apostle  apply,  that  *'  should  we,  or  an 
angel  from  heaven,  announce  to  you  any  thing  contrary  to 
what  we  have  announced  to  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  Gal. 
i.  8.  (See  Greek.)  And  under  whatever  inducements  we 
may  suffer  ourselves  to  be  influenced  by  any  such  opposing 
announcement,  we  thereby  enter  the  path  to  death,  and  risk 
the  imminent  danger  of  making  eternal  shipwreck  of  the 
soul.     Compare  1  Kings  xiii.  17,  18. 

The  Professor  commences  his  discussion  of  this  subject 
with  the  remark  that  "  The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  is  in  so 
many  instances  and  in  such  a  variety  of  ways,  brought  into 
connexion  with  the  resurrection  of  his  people,  especially  as  a 
pledge  of  theirs,  that  the  consideration  of  this  event  is  impe- 
ratively urged  upon  us  in  this  part  of  our  discussion.  As 
he  in  his  risen  body  stands  at  the  head  of  his  risen  saints,  so 
the  fact  of  his  resurrection  occupies  a  like  relation  to  the 
fact  of  theirs.  The  fact  itself  of  his  emergence  from  the 
sepulchre  on  the  third  day  is  of  course  admitted.  The 
nature,  circumstances,  and  bearings  of  the  fact,  are  all  with 
which  we  at  present  have  to  do."  p.  151.     And  he  goes  on 


328  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

to  admit  that  if  Christ  arose  in  the  self-same  material  body 
in  which  he  was  crucified,  "  it  doubtless  affords  some  coun- 
tenance to  the  idea  that  his  people  are  also  to  rise  in  like 
manner  in  the  bodies  which  they  laid  down  at  death."  He 
attempts  also  to  make  a  difference  between  Christ's  resur- 
rection being  the  pattern  and  the  pledge  of  the  resurrection 
of  his  people.  As  to  the  term  pattern,  we  shall  not  dispute 
about  it  in  this  connexion :  for  Professor  Bush  freely  grants 
all  we  here  ask  on  this  point,  that  Christ's  resurrection  is  a 
pledge  that  his  people  also  shall  rise.  But  how,  I  ask,  can 
his  resurrection  be  such  a  pledge,  on  the  theory  of  Professor 
Bush?  A  pledge  is  something  given  in  security  for  the  per- 
formance of  any  thing:  but  Professor  Bush  makes  the  per- 
formance half  done  before  the  pledge  is  given,  for  he  asserts 
that  all  believers  who  died  before  Christ,  were  raised  from 
the  dead  before  Christ  arose. 

The  reader  will  also  please  to  take  notice  of  the  Profes- 
sor's admission  that  Christ  "  emerged  from  the  sepulchre, 
(i.  e.  arose  from  the  dead,)  on  the  third  day>"  and  of  his 
admissiori,  also,  that  if  Christ  arose  u\  the  body  that  was 
crucified,  i*  e.,  "the  self-same  material  body,"  it  affords 
"  some  countenance  to  the  idea"  that  his. people  will  arise  in 
their  bodies  which  died.  The  Professor  could  not  help  refer- 
ring to  this  last  point,  for  it  would  have  been  too  gross  to  omit 
it;  but  he  has  not  stated  it  in  its  full  strength.  The  argu- 
ment fimounts  to  perfect  demonstration",  that  if  Christ  arose 
corporeally,  and  ascended  to  heaven  corporeally,  his  mem- 
bers shall  arise  and  ascend  also  in  like  manner.  To  prove 
that  Christ's  body  was  raised,  therefore,  is  to  prove  the  dqc- 
trine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

The  Professor  saw  this  and  felt  it,  but,  as  above  remarked, 
would  not  state  it;  and  by  an  absurd  evasion  has  attempted 
to  throw  over  it  an  air  of  uncertainty.  He  says  that  Christ's 
body  did  not  see  corruption,  while  the  bodies  of  his  people 
do:  and  that  "  there  is  a  heaven- wide  difference  between -the 
case  of  a  body  that  is  resuscitated  on  the  third  day,"  and 
one  that  "has  been  dissolved  to  dust."  But  what  has  all 
this  to  do  with  the  point?  In  what  way  does  it  affect  it? 
If  believers  enter  upon  the  resurrection  state  at  death,  this 
certainly  is  before  the  third  day  after  they  are  dead.  And 
what  difference  does  it  make,  therefore,  on  Professor  Bush's 
theory,  whether  their  bodies  are  subsequently  dissolved  or 
not?    This  whole  assented  difference,  therefore,  so  far  as  it 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  329 

relates  to  the  subject  before  us  is  unphilosophical  and  foolish. 
Death  is  death;  whether  it  last  a  day  or  a  thousand  years; 
and  it  is  no  more  difficult  for  God  to  restore  one  to  life  in 
the  latter  than  in  the  former  case.  But  as  a  matter  of  curio- 
sity, and  that  it  may  be  seen  how  far  Professor  Bush  is  wil- 
ling to  wander,  (for  a  child  can  see  that  if  there  is  any  force 
in  his  speculations  on  this  subject,  it  tends  to  cast  doubt  over 
the  question  as  to  whether  Jesvs  was  truly  dead,)  I  will  here 
present  an  extract  from  the  celebrated  Valentine  Smalcius, 
(reputed  author  of  the  Racovian  Catechism,)  on  the  same 
subject;  and  let  the  reader  see  how  much  more  sound  and 
philosophical  is  the  Socinian  than  the  Orthodox  Professor. 
He  speaks  as  follows:  "He  is  as  truly  dead,  who  is  dead 
one  hour,  as  he  who  has  been  dead  ten  thousand  years;  and 
truly  we  are  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  time  when 
he  was  dead,  was  as  truly  in  the  same  condition  in  which 
all  the  other  dead  are,  as  if  he  had  been  dead  many  years. 
For  if  this  is  not  carefully  regarded,  ovr  hope  cannot  be 
firm  and  sure:  because  we  do  not  die  to  arise  the  third  day, 
and  yet  we  have  hope  of  our  own  resurrection  from  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  itself.''^* 

But  let  us  now  attend  to  the  Professor's  proofs  that  the  body 
of  Christ  did  not  arise.  "1.  It  is  peculiarly  worthy  of  note," 
says  he,  "  that  it  is  nowhere  explicitly  affirmed  in  the  narra- 
tive of  the  evangelists,  or  any  other  part  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  the  identical  material  body  of  Christ  arose :^'  (p.  152,) 
and  he  proceeds  to  remark  that  the  language  which  refers  to 
this  subject  may  be  consistently  understood  without  implying 
that  his  material  body  arose.  That  is,  Per  fas,  per  nefas; 
rem,  rem,  quocumque  modo  rem.  Professor  Bush  ought  to 
have  taken  this  for  the  motto  of  his  book,  or  at  least  of  that 
chapter  of  it  which  is  now  under  consideration.  But  I  reply 
to  the  foregoing  allegation.  1.  That  it  is  puerile.  Suppose  it 
is  true  that  the  Bible  nowhere  mentions  that  "  the  identical 
material  body  of  Christ"  arose,  and  what  would  it  prove? 
The  Bible  "  nowhere  mentions  that  the  identical  material 
body  of  Lazarus  arose,  or  of  Jairus'  daughter,  or  of  the 
young  man  of  Nain,  or  of  Dorcas,  or  of  Eutychus — and 
what  then?  Did  not  their  identical  material  body  arise? 
Mahomet  said  that  Jesus  was  not  crucified,  but  that  the  Jews 
took  and  crucified  a  Jew  that  strongly  resembled  him.     And 

*  De  Ditinitate  Jesu  Christi,  Parte  II.,  Cap.  XIII.  Racoviae,  1608. 

28* 


330  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

where  is  it  said  in  so  many  words  that  "  they  did  not  take 
and  crucify  such  a  Jew  in  mistake  ?"     Even  if  the  assertion 
of  Professor  Bush  were  true,  therefore,  it  would  amount  to 
no  more  than  the  assertion  of  Mahomet;  and  it  is  fit  to  be  put 
in  the  same  category.    2.  But  the  assertion  of  Professor  Bush 
is  utterly  unfounded;  and  the  contrary  is  aiffirmiod  in  every 
variety  of  form  of  which  the  subject  is  susceptible.     First, 
In  John  ii.  18-22,  we  read  as  follows:  "  Then  answered  the 
Jews  and  said  unto  him,  what  sign  showest  thou  unto  us, 
seeing  that  thou  doest  these  things  1     Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  / 
will  raise  it  up.  Iv  t^volv  Ijut^atj  'ErEPa  avtov.     Then  said 
the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  in  building, 
and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three  days  ?     But  he  spake  of 
the  temple  his  body.     'Exftroj  6s  sxsys  Tts^i  tov  vaov  tov 
SQMATOS  ovfotj.     When  therefore  he  was  risen  from  the 
dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that  he  had  said  this  unto 
them:  and  they  believed  the  Scripivre^  and  the  word  which 
Jesus  had  said."     To  attempt  any  elucidation  of  this  clear 
announcement,  would  be  to  hold  a  candle  to  the  sun  to  assist 
it  to  shine.     The  "  identical  material  body  "  of  Jesus  is  here 
mentioned  as  the  subject  of  the  resurrection;  the  pledge  of 
Jesus  is  given  that  he  will  raise  it  up  if  destroyed;  and 
when  he  is  risen  the  disciples  not  only  brought  this  his  pledge 
to  mind,  but  believed  the  Scriptures,  which  of  course  had 
taught  therefore  that  the  body  of  Jesus  should  arise.     Se- 
condly. The  Old  Testament  (as  the  passage  last  quoted 
clearly  announces,)  declares  the  same  truth.     This  has  been 
shown  already  in  our  examination  of  Ps.  xvi.  9.  10;  con- 
cerning which  Professor  Bush  is  himself  compelled  to  admit 
that  "  from  the  inspired  comment  of  Peter,  Acts  ii.  29-31, 
it  is  clear  that  it  is  a  resurrection  predicated  of  the  body 
OF  CHRIST;"  (p.  104,)  and  as  we  have  remarked  in  loco, 
the  terms  "itt'jj  in  the  Psalm,  and  ca^l  in  Acts  can  refer  to 
nothing  but  to  his  "  identical  material  body."     Then  third- 
ly, Jesus  says  in  John  x.  17, 18,  "  Therefore  doth  my  Father 
love  me,  because  /  lay  down  my  life  that  I  may  take  it 
again."  &c.    What  life  did  he  lay  down  ?    Would  Professor 
Bush  say  on  his  own  theory  that  it  was  the  life  of  his 
spiritual  body?     Pressed  as  he  is  for  evasions,  he  would 
not  hazard  such  a  declaration.     Jesus  laid  down  his  cor- 
poreal life;  and  he  therefore  took  it  again:  and  by  con- 
sequence, his  "identical  material  body"  that  was  slain, 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  331 

arose.  FourtJily.  After  his  resurrection  he  bore  the  same 
clear  testimony.  He  had  announced  repeatedly  that  lie 
would  raise  his  body  if  he  were  slain,  and  now  says  he  to 
his  disciples,  ^^  Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself:  handle  me  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh 

AND  BONES  AS  YE  SEE  ME  HAVE,"  oto  jtviv/iia  ad^xa  xai  odtia 

ovx  szef'i  xadui  £>£  ee(^^svts  txovta,  as  ye  see  me  having. 
Here  is  the  clearest  possible  assertion,  and  one  made  by 
Jesus  himself  that  he  had  flesh  and  bones,  and  of  course, 
then,  his  "identical  material  body"  arose.  Fifthly.  The 
testimony  of  angels  is  given  also  in  confirmation  of  the  same 
truth.  "  I  know  that  ye  seek  Jesus  that  was  crucified. 
He  is  not  here :  he  is  risen  as  he  said.  Come,  see  the 
place  where  the  Lord  lay.''"'  Malt,  xxviii.  6.  "  Ye  seek 
Jesus  of  Nazareih  who  was  crucified:  he  is  risen;  he  is  not 
here;  behold  the  place  where  they  laid  him.''''  Mark  xvi.  6. 
What  was  it  that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus  had 
"  laid  there?'''' — laid  in  the  place  pointed  to  by  the  angels] 
It  was  the  body  of  the  crucified  Jesus — "the  identical  mate- 
rial body."  Here,  then,  is  the  clear  and  unambiguous  testi- 
mony of  angels  that  it  had  arisen.  Finally.  The  apostles 
after  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit  tesiify  to  the  same. 
A  single  extract  will  suffice.  "  Him  God  raised  up  the  third 
day,  and  showed  him  openly;  not  to  all  people,  but  to  wit- 
nesses chosen  before  of  God,  even  to  us,  who  did  eat  and  drink 
with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead.''"'  Acts  x.  40,  41. 
The  "  adaptation  to  the  outward  senses  of  the  apostles,"  on 
account  of  the  weakness  of  their  faith,  immediately  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  (upon  which  preposterous  principle 
Professor  Bush  would  attempt  to  evade  the  evidence  from 
Christ's  eating  and  drinking,)  cannot  apply  to  this  passage: 
for  the  apostles  were  now  weak  in  faith  no  longer.  They 
were  endowed  with  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  under  his  influence 
and  guidance  thus  affirm  that  Christ  arose  in  his  "  identical 
material  body,"  and  as  a  full  evidence  hereof  appeal  to  the 
fact  that  he  ate  and  drank  after  his  resurrection  as  he  did 
before  his  death. 

The  second proo/"  of  Professor  Bush  is  as  follows:  2.  It 
seems  to  be  a  fair  presumption  that  the  same  body  which 
arose  also  ascended.  But  the  evidence  is  certainly  conclu- 
sive, that  it  was  not  a  material  body  which  ascended  to 
heaven."  p.  153.  I  fully  grant  the  "presumption  that  the 
same  body  which  arose  also  ascended:"  and  I  demand  this 


332       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

^^  conclusive  evidence'''  that  "it  was  not  a  material  body 
that  ascended."  Where  is  this  evidence?  Professor  Bush 
has  offered  none: — and  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  fair  issue,  I 
affirm  that  he  has  no  such  evidence. 

The  third  proof  of  Professor  Bush  is  as  follows:  "  3.  The 
circumstances  of  his  appearance  to  his  disciples,  in  repeated 
instances,  subsequent  to  his  resurrection,  are  far  more  con- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  his  possessing  a  spiritual  body  than 
the  reverse."  In  confirmation  of  this  the  Professor  quotes 
John  XX.  19,  26;  and  Luke  xxiv.  36,  37;  and  adds  "  We 
have  hero  the  evidence  of  a  body  divested  of  the  conditions 
of  matter,  at  least  as  matter  is  commonly  and  philosophi- 
cally defined.  It  is  one  endowed  with  the  power  of  entering 
a  room  when  the  doors  were  closed,  and  all  the  ordinary 
avenues  of  access  precluded.  Such  a  body  must  be  spir- 
itual^'"  &c.  p.  153.  But  the  Professor  has  hardly  gone  far 
enough  in  the  statement  of  his  premises ;  he  ought  to  have 
put  thereinto  the  passage  in  Matt.  xiv.  25-30,  respecting 
walking  on  the  sea,  and  so  prove  that  our  Saviour  (and 
Peter  also)  had  only  a  spiritual  body  before  his  crucifixion; 
and  he  might  have  brought  in  Malt.  xvii.  2;  and  Luke  iv. 
1,  2,  as  confirmatory  evidence;  for  certainly  walking  on 
water  is  as  perfect  "  evidence  of  a  body  divested  of  the  con- 
ditions of  matter,"  as  entering  a  room  whose  doors  are  closed. 
The  same  argument  would  do  to  prove  also  that  Elisha's 
borrowed  axe  was  spiritualized  iron. 

But  further:  The  implication  of  Professor  Bush  that  Christ 
must  have  come  through  closed  doors,  or  through  the  wall,  has 
no  foundation  in  the  words  of  the  texts  to  which  he  refers.  It 
is  not  said  that  "  Jesus  came  through  the  closed  doors,''^  but 
that  he  ''entered  when  the  disciples  had  closed  the  doors," 
i.  e.  after  they  had,  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  barred  them.  The 
words  are  t-wv  dv^uv  xixxarsfiivw,  when  the  doors  were  closed, 
which  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  he  entered 
through  closed  doors.  The  expression  is  intended  merely 
to  signify  that  the  doors  were  opened  by  Jesus,  in  some  ex- 
traordinary way  unknown  to  his  disciples;  that  he  might 
enter  to  them. 

The  Professor  continues,  by  remarking  that  it  is  no  refu- 
tation of  his  "  conclusion'''  (that  "  such  a  body  must  be  spi- 
ritual,'^) to  refer  to  the  fact  that  the  disciples  came  and  held 
him  by  the  feet,  and  of  his  commanding  them  to  handle  him 
and  see  that  he  had  flesh  and  bones,  and   his  commanding 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  333 

Thomas  to  put  his  hands  into  his  wounded  side,  and  of  his 
eating  a  piece  of  broiled  fish,  and  an  honey-comb — for,  says 
the  Professor,  "  In  all  this  we  have  no  difficulty  in  recog- 
nizing a  miraculous  adaptation  of  the  visible  phenomena  to 
the  outward  senses  of  the  disciples,  who  were  to  be  fully 
assured  of  the  great  fact  of  their  Lord's  resurrection,  and  of 
Ihe  identity  of  his  person."  p.  154.  Were  we  not  anxious 
to  dissipate  every  thing  in  the  shape  of  objection  to  the  great 
foundation  of  our  hopes  for  time  and  eternity,  we  should 
pass  this  without  serious  notice.  He  follows  it  out  with  the 
remark  also,  that  "  the  act  of  eating  was  an  optical  act,  like 
that  of  the  three  angels  that  came  to  Abraham,"  one  of 
which  he  supposes  was  Messiah  in  his  pre-existent  state. 
He  also  quotes  Josephus  to  prove  that  they  did  not  really 
eat.  As  to  Abraham  and  the  angels,  however,  the  case  can 
in  no  way  apply  here,  for  we  have  shown  demonstrably  that 
the  body  of  Christ  truly  arose  from  the  dead.  But  even  this 
case  given  by  him  for  illustration,  is  not  so  clear  as  he 
would  seem  to  think.  He  has  not  proved  that  the  act  of 
eating  predicated  of  the  angels  was  a  mere  optical  act,  or 
illusion.  (See  Gen.  xviii.  1-8.)  Parens  says  of  it  "  Come- 
disse  angeli  6'\cun.t\ir  non  appar enter ^  sedvere;  non  tamen 
necessitate  sed  dispensatione  quadam,"  {in  loco.)  Lightfool, 
and  Theodoret  affirm  also  that  they  did  eat.  The  same  is 
allowed  also  by  Poole,  Osiander,  Luther,  Cornelius  aLapide, 
and  others ;  and  it  might  have  occurred  to  Professor  Bush 
that  it  would  not  have  been  very  difficult  for  Abraham  to  dis- 
cover whether  the  provision  which  he  set  before  his  guests 
was  all  on  the  table  after  they  had-  finished  their  entertain- 
ment.    If  it  was,  the  optical  illusion  was  of  little  account. 

So  much  for  the  illustration.  But  as  to  the  principle  itself 
which  Professor  Bush  has  asserted  above,  if  it  be  allowed, 
we  may  safely  challenge  him  to  furnish  one  solitary  proof 
that  Jesus  Christ  ever  appeared  in  the  flesh. — Every  proof 
of  it  is  completely  enervated  by  these  speculations,  if  they 
be  granted.  As  to  the  testimony  of  prophecy,  why  may  it 
not  have  been  merely  a  merciful  adaptation  to  the  fears  and 
hopes  of  men  to  allure  them  to  obedience.  As  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  apostles  why  may  they  not  have  been  mis- 
taken on  this  point  as  well  as  on  the  others  mentioned  by 
Professor  Bush?  Or  at  least,  why  may  not  his  incarnation 
have  been  only  "  a  miraculous  adaptation  of  the  visible 
phenomena  to  the  outward  senses"  of  mankind,  of  John  the 


334  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

Baptist,  the  Jews,  &c.  Now  a  principle  which  would  give 
currency  to  such  speculations  cannot  be  treated  as  a  light 
andindifferent  error.  It  strikes  at  the  very  foundation  of 
our  hope  of  salvation  itself. 

The  aspect  in  which  these  speculations  present  our  adora- 
ble Redeemer  cannot  fail  to  bring  upon  them  the  decided 
reprehension  and  detestation  of  the  Christian  world.  They 
represent  him  as  assuring  the  disciples  of  the  truth  of  his 
resurrection,  by — a  falsehood!  He  had  neither  flesh  nor 
bones,  says  Professor  Bush,  and  yet  tells  the  disciples  to 
handle  him  and  see,  assuring  them  that  he  has.  He  asserts 
before  his  death  that  he  will  raise  his  body,  and  yet  never 
raises  it.  To  assure  his  disciples  that  he  had  truly  arisen, 
according  to  his  own  previous  announcements,  and  those  of 
the  Scriptures,  he  repeatedly  eats  before  them;  and  yet  it 
was  only  an  "  optical  act^^^  that  is,  he  pretended  to  do — and 
made  them  believe  he  was  doing,  what  he  did  not  do.  This 
truly,  as  Ullman  remarks,  (respecting  the  principle  of  accom- 
modation,) "  would  imply  that  the  origin  of  Jesuitism  may 
be  traced  back  to  Jesus  himself."*  Language  fails  in  the 
attempt  to  describe  the  atrociousness  of  the  mere  supposi- 
tion involved  in  the  assertion  of  this  principle.  Hcbc  censeo 
esse  ver^  profunda  SatancB. 

In  addition  to  these  considerations,  there  are  two  others  to 
which  I  will  briefly  refer  before  passing  on. 

i.  All  the  appearances  of  Christ  during  the  forty  days 
subsequent  to  his  resurrection,  and  his  eating,  &c.,  says 
Professor  Bush,  were  a  mere  "  adaptation  of  the  visible  phe- 
nomena to  the  outward  senses  of  the  disciples,  who  were  to 
be  fully  assured" — of  what?  Why,  that  by  natural  laws  his 
spiritual  body  had  been  eliminated,  just  as  the  spiritual  body 
of  every  believer,  who  had  previously  died,  had  been,  and 
just  as  the  spiritual  body  of  every  believer  who  should  there- 
after die  should  be!  for  this  is  the  full  amount  of  all  that  he 
has  offered  on  this  subject.  Christ  did  all  this  merely  to  con- 
vince his  followers  then,  and  to  the  end  of  time,  that  he  had 
been  raised  from  the  dead  just  as  all  good  men  had  been 
since  the  fall!  And  what  ought  to  be  thought  of  a  theory 
which  presupposes  this?     But 

2.  All  that  is  said  by  prophets  and  apostles  concerning 

^  *  "  Sinless  character  of  Jesus,"  see  Park's  and  Edward's  "  Selec 
tions  from  German  Literature,"  p.  449. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  335 

the  resurrection  of  Christ,  evinces  that  his  case,  whatever  it 
might  be,  was  different  from  that  of  every  one  that  had  pre- 
ceded him — that  there  was  something  wonderfully  remarka- 
ble about  it.  See  Luke  xxiv.  26;  1  Cor.  xv.  4;  Matt  xii.  40, 
and  xvi.  21,  and  xvii.  22,  23,  and  xx.  18,  19,  andxxvii.  62- 
64;  Ads  ii.  24;  1  Cor.  xv.  14,  20;  Rom.  i.  4;  John  ii. 
18-22,  and  xx.  26-29;  I  Pet.  i.  21;  Rom.  vi.  4;  John  x.  18; 
Acts  v.  30;  Col.  i.  18;  Acts  xxvi.  2,  3;  Rom.  xiv.  9,  and 
viii.  11;  Acts  i.  3,  Acts  xvii.  30-32.  These  are  some  of 
the  passages  which  announce  this  event  as  something  won- 
derful and  stupendous.  But  Professor  Bush  tells  us  that  he 
arose  in  a  spiritual  body,  just  as  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  did,  and  all  believers  who  had  died  before  him.  Where 
then  is  the  ground  for  any  thing  thus  wonderful  and  re- 
markable? What  is  the  fact  on  which  such  declarations  are 
predicted  concerning  his  resurrection? 

The  Professor  next  propounds  a  dilemma  to  the  effect  that 
if  Christ's  "  risen  body  was  material,  it  must  have  been 
miraculously  rendered  spiritual  when  he  suddenly  appeared 
in  a  room  closed  and  barred,  and  when  he  suddenly  van- 
ished from  sight.  If  it  was  spiritual,  it  must  have  been 
miraculously  made  to  assume  material  attributes  on  the 
same  occasion."  But  the  dilemma  is  very  harmless,  as 
any  one  will  see  by  applying  it  to  the  Saviour's  walking  on 
the  water,  which  he  did  without  rendering  his  material  body 
spiritual.  As  to  the  other  passage  referred  to  respecting  his 
^^  vanishing, ^^  (Luke  xxiv.  31,)  Professor  Bush  knows  very 
well  that  the  words  here  employed  by  the  Evangelist  convey 
no  such  meaning  as  he  would  attach  to  the  word  "  vanish^ 
The  Greek  is  xal  avto?  a^avto^  syivsto  drt'  avtuv;  and  simply 
means  that  he  ceased  to  be  seen  by  them.  And  if  any  one 
should  refuse  to  admit  that  drt'  avt<Zv  in  this  connexion  inti- 
mates a  change  of  place  performed  so  quickly  that  he  ap- 
peared to  them  to  vanish  into  air,  yet  what  should  hinder 
that  his  ceasing  to  be  seen  by  them  was  even  affected  by 
"  their  eyes  being  holden,"  that  they  should  not  see  him?  as 
with  those  mentioned  in  Gen.  xix.  11;  and  2  Kings  vi.  18, 20. 
If,  therefore,  vanish  may  be  taken  to  mean  to  pass  away 
from  the  sight,  to  disappear,  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage 
to  favour  the  Professor's  view,  more  than  the  view  he  op- 
poses: for  even  on  his  own  theory,  if  Christ  had  "a  spiritual- 
ized body,"  the  vanishing  could  not  have  been  by  dissipation, 


336       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

like  vapour,  or  smoke,  but  simply  by  passing  away  from  the 
sight. 

In  Section  IV.,  the  Professor  says  also  "  That  there  was 
something  miraculous  in  his  several  appearances  after  his 
resurrection,  is  to  be  inferred  from  Mark  xvi.  12 ;  '  After 
that  he  appeared  in  another  form  {iv  hi^a  /*oC1''fi')  ^^^^  ^^^ 
of  them,  as  they  walked,  and  went  into  the  country.'  This 
certainly  implies  a  transformation  of  some  kind,  such  as 
we  may  easily  conceive  to  pertain  to  a  spiritualized  bodyj'^ 
p.  156.  But  our  Saviour  underwent  a  greater  change  of 
form  than  that  here  referred  to,  on  Tabor  before  his  death ; 
(See  Matt.  xvii.  2;)  and  this,  if  there  be  any  force  in  the 
Professor's  argument,  would  prove  that  he  had  "  a  purely 
spiritual  body"  before,  as  well  as  after  his  death.  And  then 
as  to  the  phrase  iv  Bte^q-  jtto^t??'  ^^  ^^^  ^^  furthest  mean  no- 
thing more  than  a  change  of  habit,  such  as  Professor  Bush 
witnesses  every  day  in  New  York,  and  which  according  to 
his  argument,  would  prove  that  the  people  of  that  city  all 
have  "  spiritualized  bodies."  In  reference  to  the  phrase 
Piscator  remarks  after  quoting  it,  "  Id  est,  alio  habitu  seu 
vestitu.^^  "  That  is,  in  other  apparel  or  raiment:  for  that 
he  had  retained  the  native  form  of  his  countenance,  is  plain 
from  the  words  in  Luke  xxiv.  16,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
eyes  of  his  two  disciples  were  holden  that  they  should  not 
know  him."  This  is  decisive.  Grotius  explains  the  phrase 
in  the  same  manner;  "Habitu  alio  quam  quo  uti  solebat:" 
and  remarks  that  "  the  fietaiJLo^^oierj  or  transfiguration  in 
Mark  ix.  2,  3,  is  referred  to  the  raiment. ^^ 

The  Professor  for  the  next  six  pages  enters  into  a  labour- 
ed effort  to  prove  that  Christ  ascended  to  heaven  on  the 
first  day  of  his  resurrection.  He  makes  free  use  of  the 
learned  essay  of  Kinkel,  (found  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra" 
for  Feb.  1844,  p.  152-175,)  in  which  that  profound  scholar 
supposes  that  Christ  ascended  immediately  after  the  resur- 
rection, and  several  times  during  the  period  of  the  forty 
days,  and  even  several  times  afler  it,  until  the  generation 
that  had  known  him  in  the  flesh  had  all  left  the  earth,  and 
he  could  no  longer  be  recognized.  But  he  holds  to  the  true 
resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ's  material  body:  and 
referring  to  the  neological  objections  which  are  urged  against 
the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ's  body,  (and  by  con- 
sequence of  the  bodies  of  his  followers)  he  remarks,  "  How 
this  contrariety  to  mechanical  laws  is  renwved  by  the  ascen- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  337 

sion  is  not,  indeed,  level  to  our  apprehension,  but  it  is  pro- 
mised as  future.  The  doubt  in  respect  to  the  possibility  is 
removed  by  fact.  Christ  lives  in  a  human  body,  and  still 
is  removed  from  the  earth.  What  is  true  of  the  first-fruits 
is  a  guaranty  for  the  harvest."  p.  155.  I  desire  that  the 
reader  vi^ould  take  particular  notice  of  this  extract  for  reasons 
which  will  appear  presently.  But  so  far  as  the  conclusion 
of  Kinkel  is  concerned,  that  Christ  ascended  on  the  first  day, 
or  on  any  day  before  the  fortieth,  I  dissent  from  it  in  toto. 
The  view  which  he  has  presented  is  exceedingly  ingenious, 
but  it  lacks  support  from  the  New  Testament.  See  Acts  i. 
2,  9;  Heb.  iv.  14;  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  &c. 

As  above  remarked,  however,  Professor  Bush  makes  free 
use  of  this  essay,  and  with  a  proper  acknowledgment,  appro- 
priates whatever  he  can  find  in  it  which  may  seem  to  coun- 
tenance his  theory.  The  point  most  laboured  by  him  is 
that  Christ  ascended  directly  after  his  resurrection.  This 
point  I  need  not  discuss  here,  for  so  far  as  Professor  Bush 
and  his  theory  are  concerned,  1  am  perfectly  willing  to 
grant  it:  and  admit  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  Christ  did 
ascend  at  that  time.  But  what  then?  What  has  all  this  to 
do  with  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ's  body? 
Professor  Bush  will  answer.  "  The  inference  from  all  this," 
says  he,  "  is  obvious.  If  Christ  ascended  to  heaven  first 
immediately  after  his  resurrection,  and  repeatedly  in  the 
forty  days  subsequent,  he  must  have  ascended  in  a  spiritual 
body,  (i.  e.  as  he  explains  it  on  p.  156,  "  a  purely  spiritual, 
or  a  spiritualized  body.'*'')  U  he  ascended  in  a  spiritual 
body,  he  must  have  arisen  in  a  spiritual  body.  Conse- 
quently, the  phenomena  indicating  a  material  body  to  the 
senses  of  the  disciples  must  have  been  miraculously  assumed. 
In  other  words,  they  were  mere  appearances.  If  this  con- 
clusion can  be  avoided — how?"  p.  162. 

The  frst  thing  peculiarly  striking  about  this  conclusion, 
is  its  extreme  modesty.  *'  If  Christ  ascended,  he  must  have 
ascended  in  a  spiritual  body,"  says  the  Professor.  He  ofl^ers 
no  proof  of  the  assertion,  only  that  "  it  must  be  so."  Now 
Kinkel,  from  whose  essay  Professor  Bush  obtained  what  he 
has  ofiered  to  prove  that  Christ  ascended  immediately  after 
his  resurrection,  declares  that  the  assertion  that  Christ  did 
not  ascend  in  a  material  body  "  is  disproved  by  fact:''''  but 
our  author  after  appropriating  a  goodly  portion  of  what 
Kinkel  has  said  asserts  that  the  very  reverse  of  this  conclu- 

29 


33S  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

sion  "  must "  be  true;  and  as  he  does  not  state  the  reasons 
on  which  this  assertion  is  based,  we  are  left  to  infer  that  it 
is  so  plain  and  "  obvious,^^  that  none  would  question  it. 
This  certainly  is  modesty  in  the  superlative  degree.  The 
second  thing  worthy  of  remark  about  this  "  inference," 
(although  this  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  present  case; 
it  is  characteristic  of  the  generality  of  the  Professor's  conclu- 
sions,) is,  that  there  is  not  the  remotest  connexion  between  the 
premises  and  the  conclusion.  There  is  a  hiatus  here  across 
which  Euclid  could  never  have  passed.  A  single  fact  will 
show  it.  Paul  ascended  "  to  the  third  heavert;"  (2  Cor.  xii. 
2-4;)  and  subsequently  speaking  of  it  he  allows  that  this 
ascension  might  have  been  while  in  the  body  as  easily  as  if 
out  of  the  body.  Christ  therefore  need  not  have  ascended 
in  a  "  spiritualized  body."  And  then  thirdly,  as  before  re- 
marked, we  have  furnished  irrefragable  evidence  that  Christ's 
body  arose :  and  the  proof  is  demonstrable,  (or  as  Professor 
Bush  admits  on  p.  153,  "  it  seems  to  be  a  fair  presumption") 
that  the  same  body  which  rose  also  ascended.  On  the  even- 
ing of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  as  Kinkel  remarks, 
"  Christ  still  ate  earthly  food;  but  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  he  did  this  also,  in  his  far  later  manifestation 
at  the  sea  of  Galilee;  at  least,  the  question,  <  Children  have 
ye  any  meat?'  the  producing  of  the  fish  and  bread,  and 
finally  his  concluding  invitation,  '  Come  and  dine,'  John  xxi. 
5,  9,  12,  seem  to  involve  the  supposition  that  he  himself 
partook."  Biblioth.  Sac.  for  Feb.  1844,  p.  166. 

After  this  effort  to  prove  that  Christ  ascended  immediately 
after  his  resurrection,  the  Professor  thus  proceeds  with  his 
"  catalogue  of  proofs  "  "  The  grand  purpose  for  which  the 
Divine  Redeemer  assumed  a  body  of  flesh  was  accomplished 
when  he  expired  on  the  cross.  TetaTisctai,,  it  is  finished, 
was  his  dying  exclamation.  So  also,  just  upon  the  evi  of 
his  crucifixion,  John  xvii.  4,  *  I  have  finished  the  work  which 
thou  gavest  me  to  do.'  Accordingly,  when  he  had  '  accom- 
plished his  decease  at  Jerusalem,'  he  entered  at  once  into  a 
new  state  and  a  new  dispensation.  He  now  came  into  that 
economy  which  was  to  be  emphatically  of  the  Spirit.  The 
agency  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  prominent  in  the  scriptural 
accounts  of  the  resurrection;  '  Declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.'  The  uses  of  a  material  body  had 
now  surceased  for  ever."     In  the  same  style  the  Professor 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  339 

continues,  and  remarks  that  "  it  was  not  possible  that  a 
spiritual  body  should  be  holden  in  the  grave;"  that  "  a  fleshly- 
body  pertained  not  to  the  work  of  glorification,  but  to  that 
of  his  humiliation,"  and  that  "  the  work  and  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  were  henceforth  to  be  spiritual,"  &c.  p.  163. 
Here  certainly  are  proofless  assertions  enough  for  one  page; 
and  as  they  are  so  perfectly  gratuitous,  we  should  be  justi- 
fied in  passing  them  without  remark;  yet  we  shall  not  do  so, 
but  briefly  notice  them  in  their  order. 

The  assertion  that  "  the  grand  purpose  for  which  Christ 
assumed  a  body  of  flesh  was  accomplished  when  he  expired 
upon  the  cross,"  is  directly  contradicted  by  every  passage 
which  we  have  adduced  in  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  his 
body.  It  is  contradicted  also  by  Rom.  iv.  25,  where  Paul 
says  that  Jesus  "  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was 
raised  again  for  ovr  justification;^''  and  by  a  multitude  of 
similar  passages.  And  to  apply  as  ProfeSvSor  Bush  does, 
"  it  is  finished  "  as  a  proof  of  his  assertion,  is  like  the 
skeptic  who  attempted  to  prove  the  abrogation  of  the  Old 
Testament  by  asserting  that  Christ  said  "  Hang  all  the  law 
and  the  prophets."  Tsti-KiGtai,  refers  merely  to  the  work 
of  Christ  which  was  to  be  accomplished  before  his  death,  and 
in  no  way  applies  to  his  resurrection  and  subsequent  work  in- 
cluded in  his  resurrection  and  ascension.  And  then  John 
xvii.  4,  which  our  author  quotes,  proves  too  much  for  him ; 
for  Christ  had  not  yet  suffered  when  he  uttered  those  words: 
and  therefore,  according  to  the  Professor's  own  admission, 
his  work  was  not  then  all  finished.  But  this  passage,  like 
the  former,  can  only  refer  to  the  work  of  Christ  before  his 
passion.  And  this,  our  author  is  compelled  to  allow,  for  he 
admits  that  Christ  is  still  engaged  in  his  work  of  saving 
men. 

As  to  the  "  economy  of  the  Spirit,"  it  is  not  an  economy 
o^  spiritual  existeiice^  as  he  would  pretend;  but  of  the  opera- 
lions  of  the  Spirit.  See  John  vii.  39,  and  xiv.  17,  26,  and  xvi. 
7-11;  Acts  ii.  4,  16-18,  &c.  How  truly  strange  is  it  that  a 
man  possessing  intelligence,  should  confound  distinctions  like 
these?  And  as  to  the  *'  surceasing  of  the  uses  of  a  material 
body,"  I  remark  that  to  make  such  a  grave  assertion  with- 
out one  particle  of  proof,  is  utterly  unworthy  of  my  friend 
the  Professor.  I  meet  it  with  an  utter  denial  of  its  truth. 
The  single  declaration  in  Phil.  iii.  20,  21,  refutes  it  en- 
tirely, "  Our  conversation  is  in  heaven,  from  whence  also 


340       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who  shall 
change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto 
HIS  GLORIOUS  BODY."  If  the  Saviour,  therefore,  has  in 
heaven  a  body  to  the  resemblance  of  which  our  vile  bodies 
shall  be  fashioned,  then  his  glorious  body  is  not  "  purely 
spiritual,"  or  a  tertium  quid:  but  a  glorified  material  body. 
Compare  the  declarations  also  in  Rev.  i.  18,  and  v.  9-10. 
Also  in  John  xiv.  2,  3,  his  going  "  to  prepare  a  place  for 
his  followers,  that  where  he  is  there  they  may  be  also." 
Such  are  the  assertions  (as  proofless  as  the  legend  of  the 
"  Seven  Sleepers,")  upon  the  strength  of  which  Professor 
Bush  would  claim  to  change  the  entire  system  of  Scriptural 
Eschatology. 

There  is  one  rernark  in  this  connexion  respecting  the  spi- 
ritual body  of  Christ,  which  also  calls  for  a  brief  notice 
before  we  pass  on.  The  Professor  says  that  Christ  entered 
upon  an  endless  life  "  at  his  resurrection  from  the  grave,  of 
which  it  was  not  possible  that  a  spiritual  body  should  be 
holden.'''*  Was  his  "  spiritual  body,"  then,  in  the  grave? 
If  not,  what  means  this  language?  and  what  means  the 
assertion  on  p.  151,  that  {\\e  fact  itself  of  his  emergence 
from  the  sepulchre  on  the  third  day,  is  of  course  admitted." 
He  could  not  in  fact  help  admitting  that  this  resurrection  did 
occur  on  the  third  day,  without  the  plainest  contradiction  of 
the  Scriptures.  See  Matt.  xvi.  21,  and  xvii.  23,  and  xx.  19, 
and  xxvii.  64 ;  Mark  ix.  31 ,  and  x.  34 ;  Luke  ix.  22,  and  xviii. 
33,  and  xxiv.  7,  21,  46;  1  Cor.  xv.  4.  And  yet  if  this  be 
so,  what  means  his  language  only  two  pages  further  on, 
(p.  165,)  "  And  how  delightful  and  interesting  the  thought," 
says  he,  "  of  so  complete  an  identity  of  lot  awaiting  the 
Head  and  the  members  of  the  redeemed  mystical  body — 
that  as  we  are  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  so  we 
shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection — that  as  he 
entered  at  once  into  a  spiritual  body,  and  so  abides,  so 
shall  we  also  at  death,  but  exchange  our  present  bodies 
of  vileness  for  our  future  bodies  of  glory  fashioned  like 
his.^'  On  p.  178,  he  says  also  that  this  spiritual  body  goes 
forth  from  the  body  with  the  dying  breath,  and  "  before  the 
body  is  consigned  to  the  dust:"  and  on  p.  179,  *'  It  is  deve- 
loped before"  the  consignment  of  the  body  to  the  earth;  and 
p.  180,  it  is  developed  ^^ at  death.''''  Here,  then,  Jesus  arose  at 
death,  at  once  into  a  spiritual  body;  and  yet  did  not  "  emerge 
from  the  sepulchre  until  the  third  day:"  and  still  his  "  mate- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  341 

rial  body  never  arose."  Thus  crude  and  self-contradictory 
are  my  friend's  conceptions  on  the  prime  point  in  this  whole 
discussion.  Did  not  these  facts  contradict  us,  we  should 
have  pronounced  it  incredible  that  any  man,  bearing  a  title 
to  scholarship,  should  have  ventured  before  the  American 
public  with  such  an  exhibition,  coupled  with  the  full  an- 
nouncement, that  he  expects  his  views  on  this  subject  to  be 
received,  and  that  they  cannot  fail  to  effect  an  entire  revolu- 
tion in  the  view  entertained  by  us  on  the  subjects  to  which  we 
attach  the  highest  and  most  vital  importance.  But  even  this 
is  not  the  strangest  feature  of  the  foregoing  representations. 
They  present  the  following  dilemma  from  which  escape  is 
absolutely  impossible.  Either  the  resurrection  of  Christ  took 
place  at  his  death,  or  it  took  place  on  the  third  day  after.  If  it 
took  place  at  his  death,  then  the  prophetic  Scriptures  relating 
to  this  subject  have  never  been  fulfilled ;  (see  1  Cor.  xv.  4,)  and 
the  apostolic  testimony,  as  well  as  the  assurances  of  Christ, 
above  referred  to,  are  plainly  false.  If  it  did  take  place  on 
the  third  day,  then  the  spiritual  body  did  not  leave  the  mate- 
rial until  that  time.  Now  Professor  Bush  constantly  affirms 
(as  we  have  shown)  that  the  spiritual  body  is  the  life  itself 
of  the  material.  If  therefore  it  did  not  leave  the  material 
body  until  ihe  third  day,  then  our  Saviour  was  not  really 
dead  all  the  time  that  he  was  within  the  sepulchre;  and  con-. 
sequently  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  he  did  then  die. 
We  are,  therefore,  left  without  evidence  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures. 

After  a  few  additional  remarks,  fraught  with  the  same  in* 
consistency,  and  in  which  he  asserts  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  entered  the  resurrection-state  before  Christ,  and  also 
that  Christ's  body  was  "  dispersed,"  he  thus  proceeds:  "  We 
may  admit  indeed  that  the  disciples  supposed  that  the  body 
which  they  saw  and  handled  was  the  veritable  body  of  iheir 
crucified  Lord,  and  that  in  their  preaching  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  they  had  no  other  idea  than  that  of  the  reanin?a» 
tion  of  his  body  of  flesh."  p.  165.  And  he  attributes  this  their 
mistake  to  "  those  carnal  apprehensions  which  they  then 
cherished ;"  and  says  that  "  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose"  that 
afterwards  they  may  have  arrived  at  the  correct  view  of  the 
matter :  but,  continues  he,  "  at  any  rate,  we  know  no  reason 
why  the  measure  of  their  intelligence  on  this  point  should 
be  the  limit  of  ours.''''  Such  is  the  rudeness  with  which  he 
assails  the  believer's  confidence  in  the  resurrection  of  our 

29* 


342  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

Saviour.  To  refute  such  assertions  would  be  out  of  place, 
unless  in  disputing  with  skeptics.  Yet  it  may  be  proper 
to  remark,  1.  That  after  the  apostles  were  endowed  with 
the  Spirit,  who  led  them  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  on 
this  and  on  all  other  parts  of  the  Gospel  which  it  was  neces- 
sary to  proclaim,  they  still  asserted  (as  we  have  above  shown) 
that  the  body  of  Christ  arose.  Acts  x.  40.  Christ  also  as- 
serted it;  so  did  the  prophets,  and  so  also  did  the  angels.  All 
this  is  recorded  by  the  apostles,  and  yet  the  measure  of  their 
intelligence,  comprising  that  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  angels, 
and  what  Christ  also  made  known,  is  not  to  "  be  the  limit"  of 
that  of  Professor  Bush!  But,  2;  he  could  not  even  assert 
these  sentiments  without  directly  contradicting  himself.  On 
p.  208,  209,  he  asserts  that  the  apostles,  and  even  the  stupid 
Sadducees,  fully  apprehended  the  premises  and  conclusion  of 
the  Saviour's  argument  in  Matt.  xxii.  23-33;  and  in  that  ar- 
gument, says  he,  Jesus  asserts  that  the  resurrection  is  not  a 
resurrection  of  the  body,  but  a  resurrection  of  the  spiritual 
nature  at  death.  And  hence,  says  the  Professor,  the  disci- 
ples and  others  could  at  once  see  that  the  argument  of  the 
Sadducees  was  entirely  refuted.  Here,  then,  according  to 
our  author,  they  understood  the  true  nature  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, before  the  death  of  Christ :  and  yet,  when  Christ  arose, 
he  must,  in  order  to  make  them  believe  that  he  had  entered 
into  this  resurrection  state,  make  them  believe  also  that  his 
body  had  arisen  !  And  the  disciples  (who  in  the  early  part 
of  his  ministry  understood  perfectly  the  true  nature  of  the 
resurrection)  became  so  dull  in  proportion  as  they  received 
the  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  and  were  better  acquainted 
with  the  matter,  that  Christ  had  to  make  them  believe  that 
his  material  body  had  arisen,  before  they  could  compre- 
hend that  his  spiritual  body  should  have  left  the  material 
body  at  death. 

In  the  next  paragraph  he  proceeds  to  answer  the  question, 
''  If  the  material  body  did  not  rise,  or  was  not  the  subject  of 
the  resurrection,  what  became  of  it?  for  it  was  not  found  in 
the  sepulchre,  neither  did  it  see  corruption."  p.  166.  And 
to  this  he  replies,  1,  that  the  difficulty  presses  the  doctrine 
which  he  is  opposing ;  "  for  it  is  admitted,"  says  he,  "  that 
our  risen  Lord  did  not  enter  heaven  in  a  body  of  flesh  and 
bones."  But  if  by  this  he  means  that  we  admit  that  Christ 
did  not  enter  heaven  in  a  material  body,  he  ought  to  have 
known  that  it  is  an  assertion  that  is  entirely  unfounded. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  343 

The  nature  of  that  change  which  his  body  underwent  in  as- 
cending to  heaven,  we  cannot  pretend  to  explain ;  for  it  does 
not  yet  appear  even  what  we  ourselves  shall  be.  It  may  have 
been,  and  probably  was  entirely  analogous  lo  that  which  he 
underwent  on  Tabor,  while  yet  retaining  full  possession  of 
his  material  body.  2.  He  next  prodeeds  to  remark  that  "  it 
was  resolved  into  its  primitive  elements  like  that  of  Elijah." 
I  will  not  follow  him  into  this  remark  further  than  to  say, 
that  it  is  not  true  that  the  body  of  either  our  Saviour  or 
Elijah  was  thus  dissolved.  He  continues  these  revolting 
speculations  for  a  page  or  two  further,  but  we  have  said 
more  than  sufficient  for  exposing  their  deformity. 

On  this  whole  subject,  therefore.  Professor  Bush  has  not 
been  able  to  adduce  a  particle  of  evidence  to  afford  the  least 
countenance  to  his  theory.  What  he  has  attempted  to  pro- 
duce is  in  direct  conflict  therewith;  while  his  assertions  have 
been  found  to  be  not  only  destitute  of  proof,  but  to  be  made 
in  direct  contradiction  to  the  plainest  facts  in  the  case.  We 
need  not  prosecute  the  argument  any  further,  for  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  the  body  of  Christ 
is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  these  "  great  swelling  words  of 
vanity."     We  shall  conclude  with  a  single  reflection. 

A  careful  consideration  and  comparison  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  glorification  of  Christ,  with  the  predicted  resurrec- 
tion and  change  of  his  people  will  evince  that  there  is  the 
most  beautiful  and  perfect  analogy  throughout.  For  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  itself  the  change  spoken  of 
in  Phil.  iii.  21;  and  1  John  iii.  2,  &c.,  and  ought  not  to  be 
confounded  with  it ;  for  the  sacred  writers,  as  we  have  shown 
on  1  Cor.  XV.,  make  a  plain  and  obvious  distinction  between 
them.  The  resurrection  is  the  raising  of  the  body  and  re- 
union of  it  with  the  soul.  Death  and  infirmity  and  sin  then 
reign  over  the  body  no  more;  and  it  is  a  spiritual  body,  that 
is,  a  body  adapted  to  spiritual  uses:  but  as  yet  it  is  not 
fashioned  like  unto  Christ's  glorious  body.  This  takes 
place  subsequently.  The  dead  are  first  raised,  and  then 
both  they  and  the  living  are  all  changed  at  the  same  time. 

Thus  was  it  strictly  with  our  blessed  Redeemer.  His 
body  was  raised  a  spiritual  body,  i.  e.  a  body  adapted  to  the 
uses  of  the  restored  spirit.  The  divesting  himself  of  the 
conditions  of  his  mere  earthly  life,  or  of  bodily  necessities 
took  place  as  Ullman  remarks,  (and  as  it  will  take  place 


344  THE    RESURRECTION    OE    THE    BODY 

with  all  his  members)  "  immediately  after  the  resurrection, 
when  the  soul  was  again  united  with  the  body  and  elevated 
it  from  earth."  Biblioth.  Sacra,  for  Feb.  1844.  p.  166. 
Hence  it  was  an  immortal  body,  as  Paul  remarks,  predi- 
cating its  immortality  upon  the  fact  of  its  simple  resurrection 
from  the  power  of  the  grave:  "Christ  being  raised  from 
the  dead,  dieth  no  more;  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over 
him."  Rom.  vi.  9.  The  same  is  asserted  in  Acts  xiii.  34. 
And  thus  shall  it  be  with  his  members  when  raised  from  the 
dead.  His  body  was  not  however  "  changed,^''  (in  the  apos- 
tolic import  of  that  term)  until  his  ascension.  It  was  not 
till  then  that  he  was  glorified,  as  the  giving  of  the  Spirit 
itself  demonstrates.  John  vii.  39.  At  his  ascension,  his 
body  became  the  glorious  body  that  it  is  now,  and  which  is 
referred  to  in  Rev. i.  13-18;  1  Johniii.  2;  Phil.  iii.  21;  and 
Acts  xxii.  6-11;  with  xxvi.  13-16.  After  his  resurrection, 
therefore,  Jesus  ascended  to  the  clouds,  ("  a  cloud  received 
him  out  of  their  sight."  Acts  i.  9,)  and  then  was  he  glorified. 
Just  so  shall  his  members  y?rs<  be  raised  immortal,  and  then 
(with  the  living)  be  caught  up  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the 
Lord.  Then  shall  they  be  like  him  (changed,  or  fashioned 
like  his  glorious  body,)  for  they  shall  then  see  him  as 
HE  IS.*  Thus  harmoniously  and  beautifully  is  his  resur- 
rection and  ascension  in  every  respect  a  pattern  of  ours. 
The  Lord  grant  that  such  a  portion  may  be  the  happy  lot 
of  both  the  writer  and  the  reader  of  this  work. 


*  The  following  singular  passage  occurs  in  Quest.  35,  of  the  "  Ques- 
tions  and  Answers  to  the  Orthodox,^'  attributed  by  some  to  Justin 
Martyr.  Speaking  of  the  raised  saints  Matt,  xxvii.  50-53,  the  writer 
says,  "They  died  not  again  but  continue  in  immortality,  just  as 
Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  are  with  them  in  Paradise,  still  waiting  for  a 
change  after  the  manner  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ;  accord, 
ing  to  the  words  of  the  aposlle,  *we  shall  all  be  changed.^  "  I  quote 
it  without  comment  or  endorsement. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  345 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  JUDGMENT  TO  COME. 

Professor  Bush  being  perfectly  aware  that  the  commonly 
received  doctrine  of  a  future  judgment  is  fatal  to  his  whole 
theory  of  the  resurrection,  has  spared  no  effort  to  explain  in 
accordance  therewith  the  scriptural  representations  of  that 
doctrine.  In  the  present  chapter  we  shall  therefore  pre- 
sent the  scriptural  view  of  it,  and  show  how  utterly  our 
author  has  failed  to  reconcile  it  with  his  theory.  In  Chapter 
II.  of  Part  I.  we  have  given  an  account  of  the  Professor's 
view  from  the  "  Anastasis"  itself,  and  have  traced  it  to  its 
original  and  appropriate  sources. 

The  single  proposition,  to  the  demonstration  of  which 
Professor  Bush  bends  his  energies  in  the  present  section  of  his 
work,  is  that  "  If  the  anticipated  judgment  really  coincides, 
according  to  the  true  tenor  of  revelation,  in  point  of  time 
with  the  resurrection,  and  the  real  resurrection  ensues  im- 
mediately at  death,  then  all  argument  is  useless  either  in 
support  or  denial  of  the  fact,  that  each  individual  soul  must 
be,  in  effect,  judged  as  soon  as  the  spirit  leaves  the  body. 
Our  sentence,  in  truth,  is  passed  before  our  graves  are  dug :" 
(p.  275,)  *'  and  that  if  the  resurrection  expands  itself  into 
an  unfolding  process,  covering  the  lapse  of  successive  gene- 
rations, such  may  be  the  fact  also  with  respect  to  the  judg- 
ment itself.  And  he  asserts  also  that  "  the  jvdgment  runs 
parallel  with  the  kingdom,^^  upon  which  Christ  entered  at 
his  ascension;  pp.  280,  287.  But  as  we  have  divested 
this  argument  of  its  assumed  analogical  force,  by  demon- 
strating that  this  view  of  the  resurrection  is  incorrect,  it  is 
plain  that  in  this  discussion  it  must  stand  upon  its  intrinsic 
merits  alone. 

Before  entering  fully  into  the  argument,  however,  there 
are  some  preliminary  considerations  to  be  noticed.  Profes- 
sor Bush  has  intermingled  with  his  speculations  on  this  subject 
much  that  is  incorrect  with  some  things  that  are  true,  and 
has  endeavoured  to  involve  with  the  discussion  the  merits  of 
the  miilenarian  controversy.  But  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that 
his  theory  can  derive  no  advantage  from  that  controversy,  in 
whatever  way  the  points  in  dispute  therein  may  be  adjusted 


346       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

by  the  parties :  for  whether  the  millenarians  or  anti-millena- 
rians  are  right,  the  inference  is  alike  fatal  to  his  specula- 
tions, as  on  either  supposition  his  theory  is  demonstraied  to 
be  false.  It  is  needless  therefore  for  us  here  to  follow  him 
in  his  attempted  discussion  of,  or  references  to  that  subject. 

The  Professor  also  in  his  speculations  respecting  the  judg- 
ment not  only  perpetually  confounds  things  that  are  distinct, 
but  constantly  labours  to  prove  what  no  one  denies.  E.  g. 
He  perpetually  confounds  the  kingdoms  of  Providence  and 
Grace;  and  labours  to  prove  that  Christ  in  his  state  of  ex- 
altation both  reigns  and  judges;  pp.  284-288.  But  who 
doubts  that  Jesus  formally  entered  upon  his  kingdom  of 
righteousness  and  judgment,  at  his  ascension,  aud  that  he 
has  been  reigning  and  judging  ever  since  ?  This  is  essential 
to  his  kingly  office.  He  is  now  reigning  in  the  midst  of  his 
enemies — Ps.  ex.,  and  must  thus  reign  until  he  hath  put  al) 
enemies  under  his  feet.  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28.  But  the  question 
whether  Christ  now  as  King,  is  the  Judge  of  the  earth, 
(John  v.  22,  23,)  and  delivers  his  people,  and  punishes  His  and 
their  enemies  in  the  present  administration  of  his  kingdom, 
(Rom.  xiv.  9,  and  Isaiah  xxxiii.  22,)  and  whether  this  his 
kingdom  will  continue  until  the  termination  of  the  dispensa- 
tion of  grace  and  mercy,  is  altogether  different  from  the 
question  whether  there  is  to  be  a  general  resurrection  and 
judgment  at  the  close  of  this  dispensation.  We  assert  the 
truth  of  the  affirmation  in  both  cases ;  while  Professor  Bush 
admits  the  former  and  denies  the  latter.  This,  then,  presents 
the  true  issue  between  us.  For  the  point  is  not,  whether  a 
judgment  runs  parallel  with  the  kingdom ;  but  whether  be- 
sides this  judgment  there  is  not  a  general  judgment  at  the 
time  when  Christ  will  deliver  up  the  kingdom. 

But  from  our  author's  confused  way  of  treating  the  sub- 
ject it  will  be  necessary  here  to  present  the  question  under 
still  another  aspect:  and  in  doing  so,  we  shall  continue  to 
discriminate  carefully  between  the  points  which,  in  this  con- 
nexion,  necessarily  come  up  for  discussion,  and  those  which 
do  not. 

1.  Professor  Bush,  in  his  book,  often  speaks  of  the  mil- 
lennium. We  cheerfully  admit  that  the  Bible  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  a  millennium.  But  we  are  not  called  upon  here 
to  describe  its  nature,  or  distinguish  it  from  "  the  new  Jeru- 
salem state,"  or  tell  when  it  will  commence,  even  if  we  were 
competent  to  do  so. 


or   THE  ^ 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDlbV  *^  -  347 

2.  We  are  also  taught,  that  previous  to  it;'^)ld  about  the 
time  of  its  introduction,  there  will  be  a  time  of  trouble,  and 
dreadful  judgments  upon  the  nations,  when  God  will  "  over- 
turn, and  overturn,  and  overturn,"  until  his  own  kingdom 
of  grace  is  fully  established  over  the  whole  earth.  There 
will  be,  at  this  time,  a  great  crisis  of  some  kind ;  and  to 
which  the  term  *' judgment"  may  be  properly  applied,  as  it 
occurs  during  the  exercise  of  the  kingly  office  of  the  Re- 
deemer. But  whatever  this  crisis  is,  it  is  not  the  general 
resurrection  and  judgment  of  which  we  speak.  We  are  not 
called  upon,  therefore,  to  discuss  here,  whether  the  millen- 
nium will  be  introduced  by  Christ  appearing  personally, 
and  raising  the  martyrs,  and  reigning  a  thousand  years  on 
earth:  for  all  this  has  not  the  remotest  bearing  on  the 
question,  whether  there  will  be  a  general  resurrection  and 
judgment,  at  the  period  when  he  delivers  up  the  kingdom. 
The  question  here,  is  not  one  between  Professor  Bush  and 
us,  as  above  remarked ;  though  he  sees  proper  to  bring  it 
into  the  dispute;  for  if  the  Bible  teaches  that  Christ  will 
thus  appear,  and  raise  the  just,  it  is  fatal  to  our  author's 
theory  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment  occurring  at  death; 
and  if  it  does  not  thus  teach,  the  question  still  occurs, 
whether  it  does  announce  that  at  some  specific  time  yet 
future,  Christ  will  appear,  and  raise  the  dead,  and  judge 
the  world.  We  repeat  it,  therefore,  that  we  have  nothing 
to  do  in  this  connexion  with  the  question  of  the  p re-millen- 
nial advent  of  Christ.  And  hence  we  shall  not  perplex  the 
subject,  by  attempting  to  show  that  any  particular  passage 
can,  or  cannot,  refer  to  such  an  event:  but  assuming  that 
the  Bible  does  infallibly  teach  that  Christ  will  appear,  and 
raise  the  dead,  and  judge  the  world,  at  some  period  yet 
future,  (which,  if  proved,  is  fatal  to  the  Professor's  theory, 
at  whatever  time  this  event  may  be  supposed  to  take  place,) 
we  shall  leave  the  reader  at  liberty  to  apply  our  proofs 
either  to  the  pre-millennial  or  post-millennial  appearing  of 
the  Saviour,  as  he  may  judge  proper. 

3.  The  point,  therefore,  which  I  shall  undertake  to  de- 
monstrate, in  opposition  to  Professor  Bush  and  the  Sweden- 
borgians,  &c.,  is  the  following : — At  some  definite  period 
of  time,  YET  FUTURE,  Christ  will  appear  as  the  Judge  of 
the  world,  and  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.  This  is 
the  true  question,  and  presents  the  only  true  issue. 

Having  thus  stated  the  question,  we  shall  now  attend  to 


348       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

our  author's  argument.  An  analysis  of  it  will  show  that  if 
he  even  had  proved  what  he  has  attempted,  he  would  have 
reason  to  say  with  Pyrrhus,  *'  Another  such  victory  and 
we  are  undone."  He  is  in  a  singular  predicament,  who, 
whether  he  gains  his  cause  or  loses  it,  is  alike  ruined. 

The  so-called  argument  which  he  adduces  to  prove  that 
the  judgment  formally  begun  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, (p.  286,  304,)  and  runs  parallel  with  the  kingdom  ever 
since;  and  will  do  so  until  the  end,  affords  a  singular  speci- 
men of  this  dilemma.  For  admitting  the  point  to  be  proved 
irrefutably,  that  the  dead  are  judged  so  soon  as  they  leave 
the  body,  the  question  occurs  with  respect  to  those  who  died 
before  Christ.  Were  they  judged  as  soon  as  they  left  the  body? 
If  not,  all  the  Professor's  fine-spun  philosophy  respecting 
natural  laws,  &c.  &c.,  and  along  with  it  his  whole  theory  is 
destroyed.  But  if  they  were  judged  so  soon  as  they  left  the 
body,  then  the  judgment  did  not  begin  after  Christ's  death,  but 
thousands  of  years  before;  and  consequently  the  whole  argu- 
ment about  the  judgment  running  parallel  with  the  kingdom, 
and  beginning  at  Christ's  ^^  advent"*^  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  (pp.  286-287,  303,  304,  307,)  is  also  overthrown. 
So  that  in  either  way  the  Professor  has  "  a  house  divided 
against  itself." 

We  pass  over  without  remark,  his  references  in  this  section 
to  the  accommodation  principle,  (as  we  have  already  fully 
demonstrated  its  neological  nature,)  and  proceed  with  the 
analysis  of  his  argument. 

On  pp.  276-278,  he  makes  an  effort  to  prove  that  the  only 
"judgment"  which  passes  upon  man  takes  place  at  death, 
and  of  course,  therefore,  the  judgment  must  run  parallel 
with  the  kingdom,  and  all  idea  of  a  future  day  of  judgment 
"  evaporates."  The  following  extract  presents  his  view  of 
this  argument: 

"  And  here,  by  way  of  taking  off  any  thing  of  a  startling 
air  that  may  pertain  to  this  position,  let  it  be  remarked,  that 
whatever  systematic  theory  we  may  have  adopted  on  the 
subject,  it  is,  nevertheless,  certain  that  the  current  senti- 
ments of  all  Christians  do,  in  fact,  involve  substantially  the 
same  belief.  No  article  of  any  creed  in  Christendom  is  more 
universally  or  unhesitatingly  held  than  that  each  individual 
enters  at  death  upon  an  eternal  state  of  retribution.  Accord- 
ing to  the  prevailing  moral  character  in  which  he  makes  his 
exit  from  the  body,  he  either  soars  an  angel,  or  sinks  a 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  349 

fiend.  Lazarus  died,  and  was  carried  by  angels  to  Abra- 
hann's  bosom.  The  rich  naan  also  died,  and  in  hell  lifted 
up  bis  eyes  being  in  torment.  This  is  a  virtual  Judg- 
ment. No  force  of  reasoning  can  rebut,  no  gloss  of  rhetoric 
can  sophisticate,  the  self-evident  position,  that  an  act  of  the 
divine  adjudication  which  seals  to  the  joys  of  heaven  or  the 
woes  of  hell  a  departing  spirit,  is  as  truly  a  sentence  of  life 
or  death — as  real  an  award  of  eternal  judgment — as  would 
be  that  which  should  be  pronounced  in  the  thunder-tones  of 
Sinai,  from  the  great  white  throne  visibly  set  and  surrounded 
by  circling  myriads  of  the  hosts  of  heaven.  Consequently, 
no  subsequent  judicial  sentence  can  be  conceived  as  revers- 
ing that  which  is  in  effect  passed  at  the  instant  the  soul 
leaves  the  body;  nor  can  the  object  of  such  a  general  assize, 
as  is  usually  understood  to  be  announced  under  the  title  of 
the  '  general  judgment,'  be  to  enact  de  novo  a  process  which 
has  really  been  accomplished  upon  each  individual  of  the 
race  as  he  entered,  in  his  turn,  the  world  of  retribution." 

He  continues  this  train  of  remark  through  another  para- 
graph or  two,  and  is  actually  thoughtless  enough  to  insult 
the  whole  protestant  community  by  asserting  that  the  uni- 
versally received  doctrine  respecting  the  soul  in  its  separate 
state  awaiting  the  day  of  resurrection  and  final  judgment 
"  appears  to  lead  by  very  natural,  if  not  inevitable  steps,  to 
some  kind  of  intermediate  state  very  nearly  akin  to  that  of 
purgatory,  and  upon  which,  in  fact,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  doctrine  oi" purgatory  has  been  actually  built." 

If  Professor  Bush  has  made  this  assertion  through  igno- 
rance, it  is  certainly  high  time  that  he  informed  himself  of 
the  true  state  of  the  case;  for  no  declaration  can  be  more 
incorrect  than  thfit  there  is  any  analogy  between  the  doctrine 
of  an  intermediate  state,  and  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  But 
if  he  knew  better,  then  he  has  descended  to  an  artifice  to 
which  I  will  not  here  give  a  name,  but  which  no  advocate  of 
a  cause  that  he  believes  to  be  the  cause  of  truth  should 
ever  employ.  I  proceed,  however,  to  consider  what  he  has 
offered  above  by  way  of  argument. 

The  same  argument  which  Professor  Bush  has  here  offered 
in  support  of  his  notion  that  the  true  judgment  **  runs  parallel 
with  the  kingdom,"  is  employed  by  the  German  neologists, 
in  support  of  the  same  notion;  for,  like  our  author,  they  en- 
deavour to  explain  away  the  doctrine  of  a  judgment  to  come. 
The  reader  will  find  full  confirmation  of  this  statement  by 

30 


350       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

referring  to  the  Instit.  Theologicas,  of  Wegscheider,  Parte 
IV.  cap.  I.  §.  1 99,  pp.  686-688,  and  also  to  the  Summa  of  Dr. 
Ammon,  §.  201.  But  the  full  admission  of  the  Rationalists  that 
the  Bible  does  unequivocally  announce  that  there  is  to  be  a 
day  of  judgment,  when  all  the  dead  and  living  are  to  be 
judged,  will  be  found  in  Bretschneider's  Dogmatik^  §.  171, 
Vol.  II.  p.  422,  seq. 

But  as  to  the  Professor's  argument  itself,  nothing  can  be 
more  unphilosophical  than  it  is,  and  it  is  actually  impossible  to 
imagine  what  could  have  been  in  his  mind  when  he  was  fram- 
ing it.  He  knows  perfecfly  well  that  the  Protestant  church 
believes  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  in  an  intermediate 
state  (not  place)  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  And 
with  these  views,  what  would  he  have  them  to  do  1  The  soul, 
at  death,  enters  the  world  of  spirits,  a  conscious,  accountable 
agent.  As  it  is  either  guilty  or  pardoned,  it  can  occupy  no 
intermediate  position — and  must,  therefore,  in  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  be  either  miserable  or  happy:  nor  is  it  possible 
to  conceive  of  it,  if  it  be  a  conscious  moral  agent,  as  being 
otherwise.  This  view,  therefore,  results  necessarily  from 
the  belief  of  the  separate  state  of  the  soul.  And  yet  our 
author  attempts  to  construe  it  into  a  virtual  admission  that 
there  is  some  truth  in  his  theory,  that  the  only  judgment 
under  which  man  passes  in  the  future  world  takes  place  im- 
mediately after  death. 

Then  as  to  the  inference  of  the  Professor  that  because 
man's  spirit  is  either  happy  or  miserable  immediately  after 
death,  therefore  there  is  no  necessity  for  any  subsequent 
judgment,  I  would  recommend  to  his  careful  consideration 
such  passages  as  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  "  For  if  God  spared  not  the 
angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered 
them  into  chains  of  darkness  to  be  reserved  unto  judg- 
ment ;"  and  Jude  6.  "  And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their 
first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in 
everlasting  chains,  under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of 
THE  GREA.T  DAY."  Now  thesc  angcIs  who  sinned,  were  at 
once  adjudged  to  hell,  ("  which  is  a  virtual  judgment,")  and 
yet  besides  this  sentence,  they  are  to  be  judged  at  the  great 
day.  And  these  passages,  therefore,  may  teach  the  Professor, 
that  though  the  soul  of  the  sinner  is  adjudged  to  hell  at  death, 
yet  there  is,  at  least,  as  much  propriety  in  his  being  again 
judged  at  the  great  day,  as  that  the  fallen  angels  should  be 
thus  judged  ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  argument  by  which  he 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  351 

would  prove  that  the  judgment  of  the  great  day  is  a  judg- 
ment that  runs  parallel  with  the  kingdom,  is  utterly  falla- 
cious. 

The  next  item  in  the  Professor's  argument  (passing  his  re- 
newed statement  and  assertion  of  "  accommodation,")  is  a 
most  singular  confounding  of  the  plainest  possible  distinc- 
tions. See  pp.  280-284.  This  is  a  point  to  which  we  have 
referred  already.  He  utterly  confounds  the  kingdoms  of 
Providence  and  Grace;  and  the  future  judgment  of  Christ, 
with  the  present  administration  of  his  kingdom. 

As,  however,  on  p.  285,  he  draws  to  a  conclusion  this 
part  of  his  argument,  and  as  it  is  a  conclusion  to  which  he 
afterwards  repeatedly  appeals,  we  shall  present  this  conclu- 
sion of  his  argument  to  the  reader.     He  says : 

*'  Now  we  deem  the  evidence  decisive,  that  this  economy 
of  'judgment'  was  to  commence  synchronically  with  that 
predicted  *  coming'  of  Christ  which  is  so  splendidly  set  forth 
in  the  vision  of  Daniel  above  referred  to,  where  the  Son  of 
man  receives  his  kingdom  from  the  Ancient  of  days.  But 
let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  '  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven'  announced  by  Daniel,  is  precisely 
the  same  coming  with  that  announced  by  our  Saviour  in  the 
Gospels,  especially  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28:  '  For  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels;  and 
then  he  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be  some  standing  here  which 
shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
in  his  kingdom.'  So  again.  Matt.  xxiv.  34 :  *  Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  this  generation  shall  not  pass  till  all  these  things 
be  fulfilled.'  So  also  Matt.  x.  23:  'Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of 
man  be  come.'  We  hold  it  to  be  utterly  impossible,  upon 
fair  canons  of  interpretation,  to  divorce  these  predictions  of 
Daniel  and  of  Christ  from  a  joint  reference  to  one  and  the 
same  coming,  and  that  too  a  coming  that  was  to  be  realized 
in  its  incipient  stages  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem." 
And  he  goes  on  to  remark,  that  this  judgment  upon  Jerusa^ 
lem  did  not,  however,  exhaust  the  import  of  the  prophesy; 
but  that  the  great  judgment  then  commenced,  and  has  been 
going  on  ever  since,  p.  286.  The  same  is  repeatedly 
affirmed  by  him.     See  p.  284. 

There  are  several  points  to  be  here  noticed.  The  first  is 
the  assertion,  that  the  coming  of  Christ  mentioned  in  these 


352       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

passages  was  a  coming  which  "  was  to  be  realized  in  its 
INCIPIENT  STAGES  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. ^^  Now 
this  coming  was  forty  years  after  his  glorification,  or  ascen- 
sion, at  which  time,  according  to  our  author,  the  Saviour 
"  entered  at  once  upon  that  great  process  of  judgment  by 
which  his  kingdom  was  to  be  characterized."  p.  340.  There 
is  a  prodigious  confusion  in  his  ideas  on  this  subject;  for  he 
repeatedly  asserts  that  Christ  entered  upon  his  work  of 
judgment  immediately  after  he  ascended,  and  yet  he  as  often 
repeats  that  he  did  not  enter  upon  it  until  about  forty  years 
after ;  as,  e.  g.  when  quoting  1  Pet.  iv.  4,  5,  and  attempting 
to  explain  it  away,  he  says  that  "  the  great  predicted  pro- 
cess of  judgment  was  just  on  the  eve  of  being-  commenced. ^^ 
p.  338.  But  not  to  remark  upon  these  contradictions  I 
observe  that  at  all  events  the  Professor  is  compelled  to  ad- 
mit that  in  respect  to  at  least  one  great  event,  the  coming, 
and  judging  of  Christ  do  not  "  run  parallel  with  the  king- 
dom;" lor  though  he  entered  upon  his  kingdom  forty  years 
before,  he  now  comes  to  execute  judgment.  The  language 
of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  compels  our  author  to  admit, 
therefore,  that  in  respect  to  at  least  one  great  crisis,  the 
coming  of  Christ  is  not  the  same  with  his  judging  as  king 
— and  much  less  cannot  refer  to  a  judgment  which  passes  at 
death  upon  every  individual.  And  it  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  if  these  passages  cannot  be  explained  without  referring 
them  to  some  great  crisis,  some  terrific  display  of  God's 
wrath  in  which  he  visits  the  Jews  in  judgment;  and  if  this 
great  crisis  and  the  language  used  in  relation  to  it  cannot  be 
resolved  into  the  judgment  which  passes  upon  each  indi- 
vidual at  death,  then  other  passages  which  speak  no  less 
explicitly  of  another  coming  of  Christ,  and  which  cannot  be 
made  in  any  way  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
must  also  refer  to  another  great  crisis,  or  judgment,  and  one 
which  cannot  refer  merely  to  the  fact  that  mankind  is  judged 
at  death. 

But  as  to  the  passages  above- quoted  by  the  Professor,  I 
have  already  remarked  upon  Matt.  xxiv.  34,  and  have  shown 
that  "  generation'''  there  means  nation,  by  consent  of  the 
highest  authorities,  to  whom  also  Dr.  Parous  (in  loco)  may 
be  added.  And  as  to  Matt.  xvi.  27,  28,  our  author  commits 
the  mistake  of  assuming  that  the  events  spoken  of  in  both 
verses  are  one  and  the  same;  whereas  they  are  entirely 
distinct.      And  yet,   baseless  as  is  this  assumption,  (and 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  353 

he  has  not  even  pretended  to  make  an  effort  to  prove  its 
truth,)  he  constantly  refers  to  it  through  this  whole  sec- 
tion, as  a  point  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  one  which  he 
has  proved,  and  one  which  affords  him  ample  aid  in  ridding 
himself  of  the  difficulties  which  other  passages  referring  to 
the  day  of  judgment,  throw  in  the  way  of  his  theory.  See 
pp.  289,  293,  337,  &c.  But  who  does  not  see  that  the  Son 
of  man  "  coming  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels, 
to  render  to  every  man  (not  Jews  only,  but  all  men,)  accord- 
ing to  his  works,"  is  a  very  different  thing  from  his  coming 
in  {bv  or  with,  or  by)  his  kingdom?  The  very  language  in 
which  these  things  are  announced,  evinces  the  difference  be- 
tween them.  The  one  is  a  coming  in  his  kingdom,  the  other 
is  not.  The  one  may,  as  Piscator  remarks,  refer  to  his 
coming  by  the  Spirit,  (Acts  ii.)  to  establish  his  kingdom ; 
(or  it  may  refer  to  his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  as  many 
think,  though  I  doubt  it,)  but  the  other  can  only  refer  to  his 
coming  to  judge  all  men  and  to  give  to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works.  But  if  the  Professor  had  referred  to  the 
parallel  passages  in  Luke  and  Mark,  he  would  have  seen 
that  these  comings  could  not  be  the  same.  In  Luke  ix. 
23-27,  it  is  said  that  there  were  some  standing  there  who 
should  not  taste  of  death,  until  they  should  "  see  the  kingdom 
of  God"  And  in  Mark  viii.  34  to  the  last,  and  the  first 
verse  of  the  next  chapter  (which  contain  the  parallel  pas- 
sage,) it  is  said  that  they  should  not  taste  of  death  until  they 
saw  "  the  kingdom  of  God  coming  with  power."  There  is 
nothing  here  said  about  coming  with  angels,  to  give  to  all 
men  according  to  their  deserts;  but  simply  the  coming  of 
his  kingdom,  which  is  a  vastly  different  thing.  Verse  28, 
(in  Matt,  xvi.)  therefore,  does  not  refer  to  the  event  men- 
tioned in  V.  27;  and  the  object  of  their  being  stated  in  this 
close  connexion,  was,  that  those  persons  who  should  wit- 
ness the  fulfilment  of  the  declaration  in  v.  28,  might  re- 
ceive it  as  an  assurance  that  the  event  referred  to  in  v.  27 
should  be  also  fulfilled.  The  inferences,  therefore,  which 
Professor  Bush  deduces  from  this  confounding  of  things 
which  are  entirely  different,  are  of  no  account  whatever. 

Now  there  is  no  dispute  with  Professor  Bush  whether  it 
is  proper  to  designate  Christ's  judgment  against  Jerusalem 
a  coming;  and  he  cannot  but  know  that  the  great  body  of 
critics  and  commentators  thus  employ  the  term.  And  his 
professing  therefore  to  establish  the  propriety  of  such  an  use 
30* 


354  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  the  term  is  labour  thrown  away;  for  it  is  a  point  which 
has  ever  been  conceded. 

As  to  the  other  passage  quoted  by  the  Professor  above, 
(Matt.  X.  23,)  it  doubtless  may  refer  to  this  coming  of  Christ 
to  destroy  the  Jewish  city  and  polity.  Commentators  now 
generally  so  explain  it.  And  we  are  perfectly  willing  that 
he  should,  if  he  thinks  proper,  apply  both  Malt.  xvi.  28,  (not 
27,)  and  chap.  x.  23,  to  the  coming  of  Christ  to  destroy 
Jerusalem. 

After  a  few  remarks  on  Christ's  session  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  the  Professor  on  pp.  292,  293,  offers  the  following 
laboured  criticism. 

"  But  our  Lord  could  confidently  say  to  the  chief  priests 
and  elders,  '  I  say  unto  you,  hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son 
of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven.'  There  are  two  points  involved  in 
this  passage  especially  demanding  attention.  (1.)  The  ori- 
ginal phrase  for  hereafter  is  an;'  a^-^t,  which,  in  the  parallel 
passage,  Luke  xxii.  69,  is  ano  toi  vvv,  from  now,  most 
unequivocally  implying  the  speedy  and  almost  immediate 
occurrence  of  the  event  announced.  Kuinoel  remarks  that 
it  is  tantamount  to  non  ita  mvltum  post,  not  so  long  after; 
and  quotes  an  ancient  scholiast,  who  expresses  it  by  ixstd 
fibx^ov,  after  a  little.  To  a  competent  judge  of  Greek 
nothing  can  be  more  undoubted  than  that  our  Lord  here 
speaks  of  an  event  which  was  speedily  to  transpire,  and 
that  it  can  only  be  by  a  violent  wresting  of  the  genuine  im- 
port of  the  words  to  make  them  refer  to  something  that  was 
to  occur  ages  subsequent  to  the  announcement.  We  insist 
with  an  earnestness  little  short  of  vehemence  upon  this  sense 
of  the  phrase,  as  we  feel  at  liberty,  in,  maintaining  ground 
that  will  naturally  be  vigorously  contested,  to  fortify  our- 
selves by  every  fair  defence.  The  interpretation  we  have 
now  proposed  will  be  seen  to  be  a  tower  of  strength  to  our 
main  position.  (2.)  The  '  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power' 
and  the  '  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,'  are  evidently 
spoken  of  as  synchronical.  It  is  during  the  time  of  this  ses- 
sion that  our  Lord  comes,  and  comes  too,  in  some  sense,  in 
glory;  for  in  Matt.  xvi.  27,  this  same  coming  is  described  as 
a  '  coming  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  and  with  his  angels.' 
The  inference  therefore  is  plainly  irresistible,  that,  as  this 
res[al  sitting  commenced  at  the  ascension,  and  as  the  judi- 
cial prerogative  commences  at  the  same  time  with  the  regal, 


ASSERTED  A^'D  DEFENDED.  355 

of  which  it  is  in  fact  but  another  form,  they  must  run  on 
from  that  point  parallel  with  each  other,  the  interval  between 
the  ascension  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  being  too 
small  to  be  of  account  in  the  grand  scheme." 

1  have  presented  this  long  extract,  as  our  author  pro- 
fesses to  rely  so  firmly  on  the  criticism  which  it  contains, 
and  as  it  is  the  next  in  order  of  his  few  attempts  at  thorough 
criticism,  which  have  the  appearance  of  justifying  a  de- 
parture from  the  received  doctrine  of  the  judgment.  The 
remark  about  "  a  competent  judge  of  Greek,"  which  is  in- 
tended to  throw  upon  the  defensive  all  who  will  not  fall  in 
with  the  Professor's  criticism,  will  not  be  considered  as  hav- 
ing much  weight  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  speci- 
mens of  his  philology  and  exegesis  noticed  in  the  foregoing 
pages.  And  as  to  the  '■'•  earnestness'^  and  '•'•vehemence'''  with 
which  he  insists  upon  his  criticism  in  this  instance,  the  reader 
will  be  prepared  to  appreciate  its  propriety  by  attending  to 
what  we  have  to  offer  in  the  sequel. 

As  to  the  authority  of  Kuinoel,  to  whom  Professor  Bush 
appeals  to  sustain  him  in  his  criticism  of  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  it 
is  of  the  least  worth  on  the  very  point  to  which  he  refers,  to 
wit,  in  respect  to  the  Greek  particles  and  idiom.  He  per- 
petually mistakes  on  these  subjects,  as  Winer  has  shown  in 
instances  without  number.  Professor  Stuart  will,  also,  sus- 
tain me  in  this  remark,  who  observes,  that,  most  of  all,  he 
fails  as  a  philologist,  "  in  reject  to  the  nice  and  discrimi- 
nating use  of  the  particles,  and  various  idiomatic  construc- 
tions. He  shows,  in  such  cases,  that  he  has  not  read  the 
classics  with  special  attention  to  these  subjects ;  nor-taken 
much  pains  minutely  to  inform  himself  in  regard  to  such 
matters,  as  Winer  has  often  developed  in  his  New  Tes- 
tament Grammar."  Biblic.  Repos.  III.,  153.  He  occupied 
in  philology,  in  relation  to  the  Old  and  New  School,  the 
transition  position,  such  as  was  held  by  Schleiermacher  in 
theology,  in  relation  to  the  Naturalists  and  Super-Naturalists; 
and  was  a  sort  of  tertivm  qvid  between  them.  And  though 
the  criticism  quoted  from  him  by  Professor  Bush  is  one  of 
long  standing,  it  derives  no  additional  weight  from  the  fact 
that  Kuinoel  has  given  it  his  sanction. 

The  word  aTtd^ti  (which  is  the  same  as  an;'  o^i't,)  has 
here  simply  the  force  of  the  adverb  a^tL  itself.  It  is  em- 
ployed a  number  of  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
every  one  of  them  is  susceptible  of  this  construction.     Pro- 


356  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

fessor  Bush  certainly  knows,  that  of  all  the  Greek  preposi- 
tions ciTtd  in  composition  is  the  one  on  which  he  should  the 
least  depend  as  furnishing  ground  for  such  an  inference  as  he 
deduces.  In  instances  without  number  it  does  not  in  the  least 
modify  the  import  of  the  words  with  which  it  is  compounded. 
So  otTtoy^a^w  in  Heb.  xii.  23,  (compare  Luke  x.  20,)  and 
drtoSf^carow,  Luke  xi.  42,  and  xviii.  12,  and  Heb.  vii.  5, 
(with  8,  9;)  and  drto^jycfar^t^co,  1  Tim.  vi.  19,  (and  Matt, 
vi.  20.)  And  then  aTtobszofiat  is  very  frequently  put  for 
Ssxoi^O't'i  and  aTtoOvYisxca  lor  dfi^axui,  and  drtoStSw^t  for  8l8u>fiii 
and  a7io7.a/xj5dvoi  for  Xa/i/3avw,  6z;c.,  &c. 

These  remarks  will  serve,  not  only  to  show  how  baseless 
is  the  criticism  of  Professor  Bush,  but  to  justify  also  the  re- 
mark of  Tholuck  on  John,  (xiii.  19,  and  xiv.  7,)  that  it  is 
admissible  to  take  dnd^tv  in  the  sense  of  d^to ;  and,  in  fact, 
in  the  former  of  these  passages  he  directly  says,  that  "it  has 
the  force  ofdi^tt:"  and  hence  to  insist  on  translating  the  drto 
is  quite  inadmissible  without  more  substantial  reasons  than 
those  offered  by  Professor  Bush.  Many  commentators  have 
mistaken  the  force  of  the  word ;  but  this  is  no  justification 
of  one  who  comes  before  the  public  with  the  highest  pro- 
fessions of  scientific  and  philological  attainment,  and  pro- 
poses to  illustrate,  that  "  the  knowledge  of  revelation  is 
progressive." 

There  is  no  evidence,  therefore,  to  prove  that  the  word 
means  to  express  the  idea  of  "  from  now,"  or  an  "  almost 
immediate  occurrence."  It  means  no  more  than  that  the 
occurrence  referred  to  would  certainly  take  place  at  some 
future*  time,  and  leaves  this  time  wholly  indefinite.  So  the 
parallel  place  in  Mark  xiv.  62,  expresses  it :  "And  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  Power,  and 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  And  in  Luke  xxii.  69, 
the  same  idea  is  expressed.  And  even  drto  tov  vvv,  (allowing 
the  remark  of  the  scholiast  referred  to  by  Kuinoel,)  cannot 
be  tortured  to  express  any  thing  of  more  speedy  occurrence 
than  'taxv  in  Rev.  xxii.  7, 12,  20,  which  refers  to  a  coming 
of  Christ  which  is  still  future,  for  the  Apocalypse  was  writ- 
ten after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  This  *'  tower  of 
strength"  to  the  Professor's  "  main  position,"  therefore,  is  a 
tower  that  sadly  lacks  a  foundation.* 

*  If  the  reader  wishes  to  investigate  the  usage  of  aTrdg  U  in  the 
New  Testament,  let  him  turn  to  Matt,  xxiii.  39,  and  xxvi.  29,  64; 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  357 

His  next  chapter,  in  which  the  same  subject  is  continued, 
he  begins  with  remarking,  "  We  now  proceed  to  avail  our- 
selves of  the  principle  and  results  brought  to  view  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  by  applying  them  to  a  passage  shrouded 
in  the  thickest  folds  of  symbolical  darkness,  with  some  hopes 
to  '  pluck  out  the  heart  of  its  mystery.'  We  allude  to  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse,"  &c. — p.  300.  His 
remarks,  however,  on  this  whole  chapter,  exhibit  only  a 
futile  effort  to  obscure  its  testimony  on  the  very  subject  on 
which  the  clearness  of  its  testimony  has  ever  been  next  to 
universally  acknowledged,  to  wit,  the  future  resurrection  of 
the  dead  and  general  judgment.  When  we  come  to  treat 
of  the  passage  itself  we  shall  notice  what  he  has  said  respect- 
ing it,  as  well  as  what  he  has  offered  on  a  number  of  other 
passages,  with  which  his  dissertation  closes. 

There  is  one  point,  however,  to  which  I  must  refer  in  this 
connexion,  before  I  proceed  with  the  argument.  What  will 
the  reader  think  when  I  assure  him,  that  notwithstanding  all 
that  our  author  has  said  to  prove  his  "Twam  position'^  that 
the  "judgment  runs  parallel  with  the  kingdom,"  and  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  future  re-judgment  (as  he  would 
call  it)  of  the  dead,  that  he  yet,  before  he  closes,  virtually 
recalls  all  this,  and  directly  contradicts  the  whole  of  it,  and 
yet  with  his  singular  inconsistency  still  maintains  it  all  to  be 
true, — that  is,  he  maintains  it  to  be  both  true  and  false.  The 
evidence  of  this  will  be  given  to  the  reader;  and  it  would 
afford  a  sufficient  justification  of  our  procedure,  if  we  had 
passed  over  the  whole  of  the  Professor's  remarks  on  this 
subject,  as  unworthy  of  serious  notice.  We  have,  pre- 
ferred, however,  to  follow  him  regularly  through  his  lucu- 
brations, and  to  examine  the  criticisms  and  statements  on 
which  he  professes  to  rely  with  the  most  implicit  confidence. 
But  to  the  point. 

The  Professor  had  already  inadvertently,  though  repeat- 
edly admitted  the  impossibility  of  making  all  the  passages 
which  speak  of  Christ's  coming,  to  refer  to  the  mere  fact  of 
his  being  a  Judge  in  the  daily  administration  of  his  kingdom, 
or  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  itself.  Hence  he  con- 
stantly admits  a  future  great  crisis  at  which  Christ  will  per- 

John  i.  51,  and  xiii.  19,  and  xiv.  7;  and  Rev.  xiv.  13.  In  this  last 
place,  however,  the  dim  should  not  have  been  translated ;  for,  as  in 
the  other  places,  it  simply  means  hereafter. 


358       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

sonally  appear,  and  at  which  all  the  living  saints  are  to  be 
changed;  and  which  he  terms  "our  Saviour's  ^/la/  mani- 
festation;" (see  pp.  190  and  266-268,)  and  therefore  Christ 
is  personally  to  appear,  at  the  period  in  which  the  living 
saints  are  changed.  But  the  Professor  has  not  seen  proper 
here  to  state  in  this  immediate  connexion  what  the  design  of 
this  final  manifestation  is,  other  than  to  effect  the  change  of 
the  living  saints,  (which  is  a  most  imperfect  view  of  this 
stupendous  event,)  and  yet  he  has  in  other  parts  of  his  book 
disclosed  another  view  of  the  subject,  and  actually  admitted 
at  this  time  also  a  judgment  of  the  dead. 

Speaking  of  Rev.  xx.  11-15,  he  remarks  in  relation  to  it 
that  the  time  of  the  events  there  referred  to  "  is  certainly  not 
the  end  of  the  world,  as  popularly  understood ;  for  the  New 
Jerusalem  state,  which  is  gradually  to  be  developed  on  earth, 
is  yet  to  ensue.  The  precursor  to  this  state  is  the  sounding 
of  the  seventh  trumpet,  which  we  have  already  seen  is  syn- 
chronical  with  this  judgment  of  the  dead.''"'  "  The  chain 
of  disclosures  in  the  Apocalypse  lands  us,  in  the  20th  chap- 
ter, at  the  Saturday  evening  of  the  world's  great  week,  to 
which  this  ^judgment  of  the  dead''  is  more  especially  to  he 
referred,  for  the  next  chapter  opens  with  the  introduction  of 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,"  &c. — p.  325.  This, 
surely,  looks  like  any  thing  else  than  the  judgment  of  the 
dead  running  parallel  with  the  kingdom,  and  taking  place  as 
each  individual  dies.  And  we  may  return  the  query  of  Pro- 
fessor Bush,  referred  to  on  a  former  page,  and  ask  him  if  the 
dead  are  to  be  judged  twice  ?  If  they  are,  then  why  does 
he  object  to  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  Protestant  church  on 
this  subject,  as  we  have  seen  that  he  does  ?  And  if  not,  what 
then  is  the  meaning  of  this  "  judgment  of  the  dead"  which 

&  JO 

immediately  precedes  the  introduction  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
state  ? 

On  pp.  334-5,  the  same  sentiment  is  repeated  even  more 
unambiguously  still ;  for  he  announces  his  firm  conviction 
that  this  '-\jvdgment  of  the  dead  takes  place  at  the  lime  of 
the  passing  away  of  the  old  heavens  and  the  old  earth,  and 
it  is  the  introduction  of  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth, 
which  constitutes  the  New  Jerusalein;  and  the  announce- 
ment of  this  is  the  closing  theme  of  revelation.  We  have 
no  account  of  a  judgment  or  any  thing  else  consequent  to  it." 
Here  then  is  a  definite  point  of  time  assigned  for  this  judg- 
ment  of  the  dead.     The  same  idea  is  still  more  strongly  as- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  359 

serted,  if  possible,  on  p.  339:  "We  have  shown,  we  think," 
says  he,  "  that  the  only  judgment  of  the  dead  of  which  the 
Scriptures  speak  as  occurring  at  any  particular  epochs  is  to 
be  located  at  the  commencement  of  the  Neto  Jerusalem 
stated  Surely,  then,  we  may  ask,  that  if  these  dead  are  to 
be  judged  at  a  "  particular  epoch,"  what  becomes  of  the 
"  main  position"  that  their  "  sentence  is  pronounced  before 
their  graves  are  dug;"  and  that  therefore  they  are  judged  at 
no  particular  epoch,  as  "  the  judgment  runs  parallel  with  the 
kingdom?"  If  these  "dead,"  therefore,  are  not  judged  as 
soon  as  they  leave  the  body,  then  the  Professor's  "  main  po- 
sition" is  false ;  but  if  they  are  thus  judged,  why  are  they 
re-judged  ?  and  what  becomes  of  his  previous  objections  to 
this  re-judging]  We  repeat  the  question,  therefore — Why 
are  these  dead  summoned  from  "  the  region  in  which  they 
abide  after  death,^^  and  thus  judged,  (see  pp.  317,  319, 
320,)  seeing  that  they  are  judged  immediately  on  leaving  the 
body  ?  And  how  is  it  that  there  can  be  no  future  judgment, 
and  yet  be  a  future  judgment  when  these  dead  are  to  be 
judged? 

Nor  is  this  all  that  the  Professor  has  to  offer  respecting 
these  dead ;  for  he  assures  us  that  they  are  those  who  died 
during  the  thousand  years  mentioned  in  Rev.  xx.  And  as 
this  thousand  years  begun  (according  to  his  treatise  on  the 
Millenivm,  pp.  101,  102)  about  A.  D.  450,  and  ended  in  A. 
D.  1453,  they  either  were  not  judged  during  that  period,  as 
they  left  the  body,  or  they  were  judged  then,  and  are  yet  to 
be  judged  again.  But  in  his  Anastasis,  p.  321 ,  he  says  that 
they  were  judged  as  they  died  during  the  thousand  years, 
and  he  thinks  that  it  is  only  by  a  figure  that  their  "judgment 
is  here  represented  as  concentrated  to  a  point."  The  Pro- 
fessor finds  it  vastly  convenient,  at  times,  to  see  a  figure  in 
a  passage  when  he  wishes  to  appropriate  it,  and  also  to  deny 
that  there  is  a  figure  in  a  passage  where  an  opponent  sees 
one.  But  even  this  convenience  will  not  assist  him  here. 
For  though  it  is  only  by  a  figure  that  their  judgment  is  said 
to  be  concentrated  to  a  point,  yet  their  judgment  does  take 
place  "  at  a  particular  epoch"  without  a  figure,  for  his  argu- 
ment requires  that  it  should  occur  synchronically  with  the 
commencement  of  the  New  Jerusalem  state;  and  it  is  at  this 
time,  says  he,  emphatically,  that  "  this  judgment  of  the  dead 
takes  place," — p.  344.  And  this  is  the  way  in  which  my 
friend  perpetually  contradicts  and  refutes  himself,  and  then, 


360  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE   BODY 

with  an  assurance  that  is  as  astonishing  as  it  appears  to  be 
d  priori  incredible,  asks  us  to  resign  our  long-cherished 
views  of  this  and  its  correlative  doctrines,  and  receive  his 
self-subversive  statements  as  truth;  assuring  us,  at  the  same 
time,  with  a  gravity  which,  viewed  in  this  connexion,  is  irre- 
sistibly ludicroys,  that  "/lo  two  truths  in  the  universe  can 
be  inconsistent  icith  ehch  other." 

Such  then  is  the  amount  of  what  our  author  has  produced 
for  the  purpose  of  impugning  the  received  doctrine  of  a  judg- 
ment to  come,  and  of  supporting  his  own  theory — if  that  can 
be  called  a  theory,  the  features  of  which  are  so  glaringly  at 
war  with  each  other  that  one  cannot  exist  without  destroy- 
ing the  other.  It  is  a  realization  of  Horace's  boar  painted 
in  the  sea  and  a  dolphin  in  the  woods.  But  the  reader  will 
be  at  no  loss  how  to  appreciate  the  Professor's  attempts,  and 
we  shall  now  proceed  briefly  to  establish  our  position  stated 
on  a  former  page,  that  at  some  definite  period  of  time,  still 
future,  Christ  will  personally  appear  as  the  Judge  of  the 
world,  and  judge  both  the  living  and  the  dead. 

SECTION  II. 

Direct  arguments  for  a  future  General  Judgment. 

1.  There  are  multitudes  of  passages  in  the  Bible  which 
speak  in  general  of  a  great  crisis,  entirely  difl^erent  from  any 
which  have  yet  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and 
which  is  to  take  place  at  the  conclusion  of  some  great  era. 
We  shall  here  merely  refer  to  a  few  of  these  passages,  and 
leave  the  reader  to  infer  from  a  comparison  of  them  with 
other  passages  which  we  shall  hereafter  produce,  whether 
this  crisis  is  not  the  general  judgment  itself. 

Such  an  event  is  clearly  referred  to  in  Ps.  cii.  25-26, 
(compare  Heb.  i.  10-12,)  "  Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth:  and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  thy  hands. 
They  shall  perish,  but  thou  shalt  endure:  yea,  all  of  them 
shall  wax  old  like  a  garment;  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou 
change  them,  and  they  shall  be  changed."  The  principal 
theme  of  these  words  is  a  comparison  between  God  and  the 
creature  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  his  greatness,  and  the 
creature's  littleness:  and  God's  immutability  is  directly  con- 
trasted with  the  mutability  of  the  creation.  And  in  this  con- 
trast the  express  statement  is  made  that  the  heavens  and  the 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  361 

earth  shall  perish,  or  be  changed.  There  is  a  similar  pas- 
sage in  Luke  xxi.  33:  *'  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away , 
but  my  word  shall  not  pass  away:"  (compare  also  Matt.  v. 
18,  and  1  John  ii.  17.)  The  word  here  for  pass  away  is 
Tta^i^x^f^^h  the  sense  of  which  can  hardly  be  mistaken ;  see 
it  as  used  in  Matt.  v.  18,  and  xxiv.  34,  35 ;  Luke  xvi.  17,  and 
xxi.  32;  2  Pet.  iii.  10,  The  same  grand  crisis  is  also  un- 
doubtedly referred  to  in  Rom.  viii.  19,  23:  *'  For  the  earnest 
expectation  of  the  creature  (creation)  waiteth  for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God.  And  not  only  they,  but  our- 
selves also,  which  have  the  first-fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we 
ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  wailing  for  the  adoption,  to 
wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body."  In  whatever  way  xtlat? 
may  be  expounded,  the  argument  which  the  passage  fur- 
nishes is  equally  conclusive.  See  also  2  Pet.  iii.  10,  IS; 
Rev.  xix.  7,  and  xx.  11-13;  Luke  xxi.  27,  28,  and  Ps.  xi. 
5-7,  and  xcvi.  13,  and  xviii.  8-16,  and  1.  1-4. 

2.  The  names  by  which  this  great  event  is  designated 
clearly  establish  the  truth  of  our  position,  and  the  falseness 
of  the  notion  of  Professor  Bush.  In  Matt.  x.  15,  and  xi.  22, 
24,  and  1  John  iv.  17,  it  is  directly  called  the  "day  of  Judg- 
ment." In  Jude  6,  "  the  judgment  of  the  great  day."  **  In 
Luke  X.  14,  simply  "judgment."  Rom.  ii.  5,  "the  day 
of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God."  John  vi.  39,  "  the  last 
day."  Matt.  vii.  22,  "  that  day."  Phil.  i.  6,  and  1  Cor.  i. 
8,  "  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  1  Thess.  v.  2,  declares,  if 
accurately  construed,  that  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  so  comes 
as  a  thief  comes  in  the  night,"  compare  ver.  3,  4.  Now 
none  of  these  passages  can  refer  to  the  mere  fact  of  a  judg- 
ment taking  place  at  the  death  of  each  individual — a  pro- 
cess which  had  been  going  on  ever  since  the  fall. 

The  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment  is  also  called  "  The 
revelation  of  the  Lord,"  2  Thess.  i.  7;  1  Cor.  i.  7,  and  iii. 
13;  and  "The  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Tim.  vi.  14; 
2  Tim.  iv.  11;  Tit.  ii.  13;  and  in  2  Thess.  ii.  8,  "the  ap- 
pearance of  his  coming,"  (see  Greek ;)  and  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
23;  1  John  ii.  28 ;  1  Thess.  iii.  13,  "  coming"  simply.  In 
2  Pet.  iii.  12,  it  is  also  called  "  the  appearing  of  the  day  of 
God."  None  of  these  passages  can  refer  to  any  past  event, 
much  less  can  they  be  made  to  refer  to  the  judgment  which 
takes  place  at  death.  We  shall  again  refer  to  some  of  these 
passages,  when  we  come  to  state  more  fully  the  argument 
which  they  contain. 

31 


362       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

3.  The  events  which  will  then  transpire,  agreeably  to  the 
scripture  testimony,  demonstrate  that  their  accomplishment 
is  still  future.  The  advent  of  our  Saviour  is  to  be  by  sound 
of  trumpet  which  shall  wake  the  dead.  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  16; 

1  Cor.  XV.  52.  He  is  to  appear  with  angels,  Jude  14,  15; 
Matt.  XXV.  31,  who  themselves  have  then  a  duty  to  perform 
in  relation  to  man.  Matt.  xiii.  41,  42,  49,  50;  Mark  xiii.  27; 
Matt.  xxiv.  31;  (1  Thess.  iv.  17,  and  Matt.  xxv.  32.)  All 
are  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  2  Cor.  v.  10; 
Rom.  xiv.  10;  Matt.  xxv.  32;  Jude  15;  the  living  and  the 
dead  are  then  to  be  judged.  Acts  x.  42;  1  Thess.  iv.  15-17; 

2  Tim.  iv.  1,  and  1  Pet.  iv.  5;  and  angels  also,  2  Pet.  ii.  4; 
Jude  6;  1  Cor.  vi.  3;  Matt.  viii.  39,  (compare  xxv.  41.) 
And  as  these  events  are  all  to  be  public  and  visible,  so  the 
coming  of  our  Saviour  is  not  only  to  be  at  a  specific  and 
appointed  time,  but  visibly.  1  Thess.  iv.  14;  Matt.  xix.  28; 
Luke  xxii.  30;  Rev.  xix.  11-16. 

4.  But  we  shall  now  proceed  to  take  a  brief  view  of  the 
argument  as  presented  in  a  few  passages,  to  which  I  shall 
refer  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur. 

There  are  many  declarations  in  the  Old  Testament,  in 
relation  to  this  subject,  which  remain  to  be  fulfilled :  as,  e.  g. 
Ps.  xi.  5-7,  "  Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain  snares,  fire 
and  brimstone,"  &c.  See  also  Ps.  xcvi.  13;  Is.  Ixiii.  1-6; 
Joel  iii.  1,  2,  13,  14.  Daniel,  (vii.  9,  10,)  in  the  most  di- 
rect manner  announces  the  occurrence  of  such  an  event. 
He  describes  the  Judge  as  appearing  in  awful  majesty,  and 
attended  by  myriads,  and  assembling  mankind  before  him. 
But  to  omit  other  references  (for  there  is  scarcely  a  prophet 
who  has  not  in  some  way  spoken  of  it,)  the  following  from 
Malachi,  (iii.  17,  and'iv.  1,  2,)  is  decisive,  "  And  they  shall 
be  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  in  that  day  when  I  make 
up  my  jewels;''^  &c. — "  Behold  the  day  cometh  that  shall 
hum  as  an  oven;  and  all  the  proud,  yea,  and  all  that  do 
wickedly,  shall  be  stubble:  and  the  day  that  cometh  shall 
burn  them  up,"  &c. 

The  declaration  in  Matt.  vii.  22,  "  Many  shall  say  unto 
me  171  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,"  &c.,  still  remains  to  be  ful- 
filled, for  no  such  occurrences  as  are  here  described  took 
place  during  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  In  no  way, 
therefore,  can  the  passage  be  referred  to  that  event ;  and 
much  less  can  it  be  referred  to  the  judgment  which  takes 
place  at  death. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  363 

The  judgment  spoken  of  in  Matt.  x.  15,  "Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  that  city,"* 
has  never  taken  place.  It  cannot  be  made  to  refer  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  had 
nothing  to  do  with  that  event.  See,  also,  chap.  xi.  22-24. 
This  day  of  judgment  is,  therefore,  yet  to  come. 

The  distinct  announcement  in  Matt.  xii.  41,  42,  of  a 
future  resurrection  and  judgment,  can  refer  to  nothing  but 
a  general  resurrection  and  judgment  to  come :  "  The  men 
of  Nineveh  shall  rise  in  judgment  with  this  generation,  and 
shall  condemn  it ;  because  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of 
Jonas,"  &c.  "  The  Queen  of  the  South  shall  rise  up  in  the 
judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it,"  &c. 
In  both  these  passages  the  article  is  put  before  judgment, 
and  hence.  Professor  Bush  being  umpire,  some  future  spe- 
cific time  must  be  referred  to.  The  preposition  used  in 
these  passages  is  fista  with  the  genitive,  which  properly 
means,  in  the  midst  of,  among,  (see  Mark  ix.  24,  and  x.  30,) 
and  can  leave  no  doubt  as  to  their  clear  import.  Winer  has 
adduced  this  text  itself  in  illustration  of  the  force  of  this  pre- 
position ;  and  as  his  remarks  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the 
subject  under  discussion,  I  will  here  present  them.  He 
says:  *'  Kuinoel,  also,  in  Matt.  xii.  41,  translates  fieta  with 
the  genitive  incorrectly  by  cow^ra.  The  signification  with 
is  as  appropriate  here  as  elsewhere,  (see  Bengel,  in  loco:) 
av6^8  5  Nivsvbtai  avadtriaovtai  ev  i*^  x^last,  fist  a  trj^  ytvsd^ 
tavtrji  xat  xatax^ivovGiv  avtr^v  signifies,  the  Ninevites  will 
appear  at  the  last  judgment  with  this  generation,  {i.e.,  as 
true  witnesses  against  them,)  as  Grotius  rightly  interpreted. 
The  interpretation  of  Fritzsche,  they  will  rise  with  them 
from  the  dead,  adds  to  these  words  a  superfluous  thought, 
(which  is  self-evident.")  Idioms,  Part  III.,  §.51,  (A.) 

»  Professor  Bush,  on  page  344,  makes  a  futile  attempt  to  invali- 
date  the  force  of  this  passage,  and  several  others,  on  the  ground  that 
day  {iv  YifAi^a  K^ia-icec)  is  destitute  of  the  article.  Such  a  criticism  is 
unworthy  of  my  friend.  Does  he  not  know  that  the  article  is  fre- 
quently  omitted,  when  a  noun  denoting  an  object,  of  which  the 
individual  referred  to  possesses  but  one,  is  clearly  defined  by  means 
of  a  genitive  following  it  ?  or  when  a  preposition  stands  before  the 
noun?  Let  him  turn  to  Winer's  Idioms,  Part  III.,  §.  18,  for  a  host 
of  examples,  (among  which  Rom.  ii.  5,  «y  »//egA  og^JJc  is  given)  from 
both  sacred  and  profane  writers. 


364  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

As  the  Ninevites  and  the  Queen  of  the  South,  therefore, 
have  never  been  raised  from  the  dead,  nor  appeared  in  judg- 
ment with  the  generation  referred  to,  the  day  of  judgment 
spoken  of  is  yet  to  come.  See  also,  verse  36  of  the  same 
chapter. 

The  events  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiii.  40-43,  49,  can  only 
be  explained  in  reference  to  the  same  matter;  "  So  shall  it 
be  in  the  end  of  this  world.  The  Son  of  man  shall  send 
forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom 
all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity;  and  shall 
cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire:  there  shall  be  wailing  and 
gnashing  of  teeth."  As  to  the  phrase  translated  ^^end  of 
the  world''''  here,  {rj  cwtt'Khla  I'ov  dtiivoj)  I  am  willing  cheer- 
fully to  admit  that  it  refers  not  to  any  supposed  destruction 
of  the  x6(stio(;  (see  ver.  38,)  but  to  the  closing  up  of  the  dis- 
pensation of  mercy  to  sinners,  which  is  to  take  place  imme- 
diately antecedent  to  the  New  Jerusalem  state.  For  the 
sake  of  the  argument  I  admit  this,  for,  at  that  time,  the  Pro- 
fessor has  allowed,  (in  utter  subversion  of  his  theory,)  that 
there  will  he  a  judgment  of  the  dead,  (see  pp.  325,  339.) 
Now  this  period  has  not  yet  arrived,  nor  have  the  events 
transpired  to  which  the  text  refers.  The  Son  of  man  has 
not  thus  descended,  his  angels  have  not  gathered  out  of  his 
kingdom  them  that  do  iniquity,  and  cast  them  into  a  furnace 
of  fire,  and,  therefore,  these  things  are  yet  to  occur. 

Matt.  xix.  28,  refers  also  to  the  future  coming  of  Christ, 
and  the  day  of  judgment.  And  it  is  self-evident  that  it  has 
never  been  fulfilled.  We  shall  not  remark  upon  it,  however, 
but  pass  on  to  Matt.  xxiv.  36-51,  "But  of  that  day  and 
hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my 
Father  only.  But  as  the  days  of  Noe  were,  so  shall  also  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be." — "  Then  shall  two  be  in  the 
field ;  the  one  shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  left. — Watch,  there- 
fore," &c.    Let  the  reader  refer  to  the  whole  passage. 

I  shall  not  enter  into  a  critical  examination  of  this  passage, 
but  merely  refer  to  one  or  two  particulars.  The  events  re- 
ferred to  have  never  transpired,  nor  any  thing  like  them. 
The  word  for  "  coming"  'is  Tta^ovala,  a  word  which  is  never 
used  metaphorically  but  always  literally  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  important  to  notice  this,  as  it  has  often  been  here  ex- 
plained by  commentators  of  a  mere  spiritual  or  invisible  com- 
ing to  destroy  or  judge  Jerusalem.  It  occurs  twenty-four  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  v.  27,  37,  39  of  this  chapter. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFKkDED. 


In  1  Cor.  xvi.  17;  2  Cor.  vii.  6,  7,  and  x.  10;  Phil.  i.  g#, 
and  ii.  12,  it  denotes  the  personal  coming  of  Paul  and  others 
to  the  churches.  And  it  is  used,  according  to  Wahl  {sub  voce,) 
in  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  seq.;  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  39;  1  Cor.  xv.  23; 
iThess.  ii.  19;  Jas.v.7,  8;  2Pet.i.l6;  iJno.  ii.  28,  to  de- 
note the  adventus  Jesu  Messias  ad  regnum  suum  gloriose  in- 
augurandum  futvrus,  which  of  course  can  only  be  a  visible 
and  literal  coming.  See  also  Bretschneider,  sub  voce.  In 
the  LXX.  also  it  is  used  to  denote  a  literal  coming.  See  2 
Mace.  viii.  12,  "the  coming  of  Nicanor;"  so  also  in  Jose- 
phus,  Ant.  III.  cap.  8,  §.  4,  and  De  Bell.  IV.  cap  5,  ^.  5,  and 
in  Vita  Josephi,  §.  17.  Nor  is  there  a  place  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  where  it  should  not  be  literally  understood. 
In  addition  to  the  places  above  noted,  it  occurs  1  Thess,  iii. 
13,  and  iv.  15,  and  v.  23;  2  Pet.  iii.  4, 12.  Now  Christ  has 
never  thus  appeared,  and  made  a  separation  among  men^  &c., 
and  therefore  the  time  of  his  appearing  and  of  the  judgment 
is  still  future.     Compare  also  v.  27-31. 

The  next  passage  to  which  we  shall  refer  is  Matt.  xxv. 
31-46.  "  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory, 
and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the 
throne  of  his  glory:  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all 
nations:  and  he  shall  separate  them,^^  &c.  (See  also  the 
parables  in  v.  1-30.) 

If  we  had  not  already  given  specimens  ad  nauseam  of  our 
author's  exegesis,  in  which  he  piles  one  huge  absurdity  on 
another,  as  though  he  expected  thus  to  scale  the  walls  of  the 
citadel  of  truth,  (like  the  old  giants  piling  Pelion  upon  Ossa,  in 
order  to  conquer  heaven,)  I  should  here  present  a  full  view 
of  his  laboured  attempt  to  evade  the  testimony  of  this  strong 
passage  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  personal  appearance  at 
the  judgment  of  the  great  day:  for  in  this  attempt  he  has 
even  transcended  himself  in  inconsistency.  But  our  discus- 
sion has  already  been  too  protracted  to  admit  of  quoting  him 
in  full.  He  asserts,  without  any  attempt  to  prove  it,  that  this 
passage  "  is  a  designed  explanation  of  a  prophecy  which  does 
not  refer  to  a  general  Judgment,  but  to  an  elongated  judicial 
process  which  flows  on  commensurate  with  the  kingly  domi- 
nion of  the  Messiah  in  this  world."  p.  288.  And  hence  the 
judgment  in  Matt.  xxv.  31-46,  he  affirms,  "  to  be  a  pro- 
longed process  of  judgment,  going  on  from  age  to  age  in  the 
boundaries  of  the  Christian  kingdom  or  church,"  and  this 
he  attempts  seriously  to  prove  by  quoting  several  clauses 

31* 


366       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  the  passage,  and  referring  to  his  exploded  criticisms  on 
Matt.  X.  27,  &c.  &c. 

Curcellseus,  I  believe,  was  the  first  who  asserted  that  the 
judgment  here  spoken  of,  is  the  future  judgment  of  profes- 
sors of  religion,  and  not  of  all  men.     See  his  Diss.  III.  de 
Necessitate  Cognit.  Christi,  0pp.  p.  921.     He  is,  however, 
refuted  by  Witsius,  (Econ.  Feed.  lib.  I.  c.  V.  p.  53.     Turre- 
tine  also  fell  in  with  the  view  of  Curcellseus,  as  may  be  seen 
by  referring  to  his  Dissertatio  de  Concord.  Pavli  et  Jacohi, 
in  his  Tractatus  de  Satisfactione  Christi;  and  says  that 
Christ  in  this  passage  appears  to  allude  (not  to  Daniel  as 
Professor  Bush  so  roundly  asserts,  but)  to  Ezek.  xxxiv.  17 
"  Ezek.  xxxiv.  17,  ad  quern  locum  alludere  videtur  Christus.' 
Dr.  Duffield,  also  supposes  that  this  passage  teaches  a  per 
sonal  and  literal  return  of  Christ  to  judge  the  nations  ante 
cedent  to  the  millennium.     But  in  no  sense  do  these  views 
though  not  in  accordance  with  the  commonly  received  expo 
sition  of  the  passage,  involve  the  theory  of  Professor  Bush 
And  even  his  own  exposition  of  the  passage  conflicts  with 
his  doctrine  that  man  is  judged  at  death;  for  if  this  were 
true,  then  those  who  died  before  Christ,  must  have  been  thus 
judged;  and  if  so,  of  course  the  judgment  which  he  asserts 
is  taught  in  this  passage,  instead  of  beginning  at  the  time  in 
which    he   makes   Christ  here  assert,  begun  thousands  of 
years  before.    This  one  consideration  is  a  thorough  refutation 
either  of  his  theory,  or  of  his  explanation  of  this  passage ; 
and  he  is  at  liberty  to  make  his  choice. 

But  when,  we  ask,  has  the  Son  of  man  been  seen  in  his 
glory?  iv  tvj  8o^^  avfovi  or  as  it  is  in  chap.  xxiv.  30,  with 
power  and  great  glory?  Where  has  he  gathered  the  nations 
before  him,  and  separated  them?  When  have  his  angels 
appeared — "  all  the  holy  angels  with  him?"  Until  these, 
and  many  other  questions  of  similar  import,  can  be  satisfac- 
torily answered,  the  inference  is  plain  and  undeniable  that 
the  events  here  referred  to  have  not  yet  occurred,  and  the 
predictions  here  uttered  have  not  been  accomplished. 

As  we  have  already  considered  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  we  pass  it 
here  to  notice  briefly  Mark  xiii.  26,  27.  "  And  then  shall 
they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds  with  great 
power  and  glory.  And  then  shall  he  send  his  angels,  and 
shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from 
the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part  of 
heaven."  See  also  Luke  xvii.  34-36.     It  is  impossible  to 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  367 

refer  the  events  here  mentioned,  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, or  to  the  judgment  which  takes  place  at  dealh,  or  to 
any  thing  which  has  yet  transpired.  Their  fulfilment  is 
therefore  to  come.  And  if  Christ  is  yet  to  appear  in  the 
clouds,  with  his  angels,  and  to  gather  his  elect,  &c.,  the  day 
of  Judgment  is  still  future. 

We  have  already  discussed  John  v.  28, 29,  (which  clearly 
implies  the  doctrine  of  a  general  judgment,)  and  shall  there- 
fore here  only  refer  to  it  in  passing.  See  also  chap.  vi.  39 ; 
and  xiv.  3;  which  clearly  point  to  the  great  event  of  the 
Saviour's  coming  and  the  resurrection  as  still  future. 

The  testimony  of  Acts  is  very  full  and  explicit.  We  have 
already  discussed  several  passages  herein,  which,  though 
they  speak  primarily  of  the  resurrection,  yet  clearly  imply 
that  the  judgment  is  still  future.  There  are  several  others 
which  we  might  discuss,  as,  e.  g.  Acts  i.  9-12,  (compare  Dan. 
vii.  13,)  which  is  still  unfulfilled.  See  also  chap.  x.  42,  and 
xxiv.  25,  but  we  pass  them,  and  confine  our  remarks  to  a 
single  declaration  found  in  chap.xvii.  31.  "  Because  he  hafh 
appointed  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righ- 
teousness by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained ;  whereof  he 
hath  given  assurance  to  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead." 

In  this  passage  Paul  urges  upon  his  Gentile  hearers  the 
duty  of  repentance,  from  the  consideration  that  God  hath 
determined  to  judge  the  world  {-triv  olxovixfvrjv,  orbem  terra- 
rum,  not  each  individual  simply  as  he  dies,)  in  righteous- 
ness, lest  they  should  be  found  unprepared  for  that  event: 
and  he  informs  them  that  God  hath  given  assurance  to  all 
that  such  is  his  purpose,  by  having  raised  from  the  dead  Him 
whom  he  hath  appointed  to  be  the  judge.  The  phrase 
7ta^aax<^v  Ttiativ  Tidat,  is  very  strong,  and  means  an  argu- 
mentum  inmctum  ac  irrefragabile,  quo  svffi-cienter  convinci 
possent  de  constitutione  ilia  divina,  a  moral  demonstration 
that  such  is  the  divine  purpose.  The  resurrection  of  Christ, 
therefore,  is  here  affirmed  by  Paul  to  be  an  assurance  to  all, 
that  God  has  constituted  him  to  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness on  a  day  which  he  has  appointed.*  It  is  not  an  as- 
surance that  he  does  noiv  judge  the  world,  as  Professor  Bush 
supposes,  but  that  he  will  do  so  on  a  certain  day — a  period 

*  See  this  argument  excellently  stated  by  Lightfoot,  in  Works,  Vol. 
II.  p.  nOl  Jolio. 


368       THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  time  yet  future — and  not  judge  the  Jewish  nation  only, 
(for  what  had  the  Athenians  to  do  with  them?)  but  all  man- 
kind: (compare  the  word  as  used  in  Rev.  xii.  9;  Matt.  xxiv. 
14;  Acts  xi.  28;  and  xix.  27;  and  xxiv.  5;)  and  hence  this 
assurance  is  given  to  all — Jew  and  Gentile;  and  this  uni- 
versal judgment  is  to  be  at  an  appointed  day.  We  have 
already  shown  the  connexion  between  Christ's  resurrection 
and  ours;  and  this  is  the  ground  of  the  assurance  here 
spoken  of  by  Paul. — Christ  is  raised  to  be  the  judge,  and 
therefore  mankind  must  be  raised  in  order  to  be  judged. 
This  one  passage  is  therefore  of  itself,  abundantly  sufficient 
to  settle  the  whole  controversy,  even  if  the  Bible  was  else- 
where silent  on  the  subject. 

Professor  Bush  seems  perfectly  aware  of  this,  and  has 
made  a  prodigious  effort,  (see  p.  340-343)  to  get  rid  of  its 
testimony.  In  the  investigation  of  the  passage  he  has  made 
a  discovery,  which  he  takes  for  granted,  (and  justly,)  will 
surprise  the  reader,  and  which  he  confesses  has  greatly  sur- 
prised himself,  (p.  341.)  And  this  extraordinary  discovery 
is  that  "  the  established  rendering — '  hath  appointed  a  day' — 
is  entirely  without  proof."  Though  Bretschneider  in  this 
very  verse  gives  it  the  sense  of  prxjigo;  and  Wahl  gives 
it  constituOf  festsetzen,  (see  their  Lexicons  sub  voce,)  and 
Schleusner  defines  it  in  a  similar  manner,  all  pronouncing 
its  import  here  to  be,  to  Jix,  or  appoint,  beforehand,  yet  it 
all  has  no  influence  to  lessen  our  author's  confidence  in  the 
greatness  and  value  of  his  discovery;  for  he  announces  that 
he  is  "  fully  prepared  to  evince"  that  the  word  in  such  a 
connexion  has  no  such  meaning  in  holy  writ.  "  The  ori- 
ginal word,"  says  he,  "  is  satrjas,  which,  as  every  Greek 
scholar  is  aware,  comes  from  the  root  va-trjixi,  (he  means,  I 
suppose,  the  root  (jT-aw,)  signifying  in  its  primitive  and  intran- 
sitive sense  to  stand,  thence  in  its  active  import  to  cause  to 
stand,  to  place,  to  settle,''^  &c.  &c.  Then  afler  a  very  labori- 
ous effort  to  establish  these  meanings  of  the  word,  he  adds,  (p. 
343,)  as  follows :  "  To  what  conclusion  then  are  we  brought 
in  regard  to  the  passage  before  us,  *  God  hath  appointed 
(satfjas)  a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world?'  Is  it  not 
inevitable  that  the  sense  to  be  assigned  is,  that  God  esta- 
blished at  the  present  time  such  a  day? — that  it  is  even  now 
current — that  it  is  brought  in — and  that  in  this  fact  lies  the 
great  motive  to  repentance  which  the  apostle  urges  upon  the 
Athenians?     We  cannot  for  ourselves  get  over  the  evidence 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  369 

that  the  term,  in  its  genuine  import,  denotes  the  establish- 
ment in  the  present  time  of  the  designated  day;  nor  will  it  of 
course  be  possible  to  convict  this  view  of  error  except,  in 
the  first  instance,  on  i)hilological  and  not  on  theological 
grounds;"  and  he  concludes  by  adding  a  self-complacent 
remark  or  two  in  view  of  the  great  effort  which  he  has 
achieved. 

Were  I  to  follow  Professor  Bush  through  the  whole  of  his 
criticism  on  this  passage,  it  might  be  supposed  that  I  take 
delight  in  exposing  his  glaring  and  perpetual  errors  in  phi- 
lology: but  reference  to  a  single  point  will  be  amply  suffi- 
cient to  show  how  shallow  is  the  evasion  by  means  of  which 
he  expects  to  save  his  theory  from  the  death-blow  which 
this  passage  cannot  but  give  it.  He  has  written  as  though  he 
thought  that  the  sense  of  the  whole  passage  depended  upon 
the  import  which  was  attached  to  £(jt'»;c(£;  whereas,  it  is  the 
connexion  in  which  it  is  here  found,  which  has  compelled 
Schleusner,  Wahl,  Bretschneider,  and  other  lexicographers 
and  critics  to  attach  to  that  word  the  unusual  signification  of 
prtBjigo,  or  constituo.  And  yet  this  is  a  point,  of  which 
Professor  Bush  has  taken  no  more  notice  than  the  sleeping 
rocks.  Did  he  not  know  that  bioTH  eati^aev  ijjiis^av,  iv  ^ 
IjLiVKsi  x^Cvsiv  triv  olxovfxhyjvy  &c.  Stands  in  this  connexion? 
and  that  fii^.U(>  x^Cvnv  is  future  ?  and  that  therefore,  how- 
ever he  might  translate  sa-tvies,  whether  appointed,  or  may 
or  does  appoint,  or  noiD  appoints,  still,  the  will  judge — 
fie%%si,  x^Cvsiv,  announces  the  judgment  itself  to  be  future? 
and  this,  not  a  judgment  of  men  as  they  die,  but  of  the 
oixov/xivfj  the  world  of  mankind?  All  this  is  in  no  way 
affected  by  his  criticisms  on  satvjas,  and  yet  these  are  the 
things  which  bear  directly  against  his  theory.  It  would 
really  seem  as  if  the  Professor  had  forgotten  the  idioma- 
tic use  of  |U£X?Lco.  Let  him  look  at  it  again  as  illustrated  by 
Wahl  and  Bretschneider,  or  by  Glassius,  in  Philol.  Sacra, 
Lib.  III.  Tract.  III.  Can.  38,  or  by  Winer,  Idioms  of  the 
Greek  Language  of  the  New  Testament,  Part  III.  §.  45,  8, 
and  I  feel  assured  he  will  see  that  it  was  purely  on  phi- 
lological, (and  not  theological)  grounds  that  Wahl  and 
Bretschneider,  &c.  &c.,  have  assigned  to  eatr^ns  here  the 
meaning  they  have.  It  would  have  rendered  them  ridicu- 
lous throughout  Germany  had  they  attempted  to  define  it 
otherwise  in  this  passage;  for  every  boy  who  had  been  but 


370       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

a  year  at  the  Gymnasium  could  have  told  them  that  in  such 
a  connexion  it  could  mean  nothing  else. 

The  next  important  passage,  and  one  which  Professor 
Bush  has  passed  over  without  remark  or  allusion,  is  Rom. 
ii.  1-16,  one  of  the  sedes  themselves  of  this  doctrine,  and 
contains  not  only  clear  announcements  that  the  day  of  Judg- 
ment is  future,  and  that  all  men  are  then  to  be  judged,  but 
an  exhibition  of  the  principles  upon  which  the  world  of  man 
is  then  to  be  judged.  The  passage  is  too  long  to  admit  of 
its  being  here  fully  quoted,  but  that  the  judgment  is  to  be  at 
an  appointed  time,  and  consequently  does  not  take  place  at 
death,  and  that  it  is  to  be  universal,  comprehending  both 
"Jew  and  Gentile,"  and  that  it  is  still  future,  is  clear  from 
the  following  extracts:  "  But  after  thy  hardness  and  impeni- 
tent heart  treasurest  up  to  thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of 
wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God; 
who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds." 
"  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law  shall  also  perish 
without  law:  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law  shall 
be  judged  by  the  law;"  (and  then  after  a  parenthesis,  Paul 
adds,)  "  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of 
men  (Jews  and  Gentiles)  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my 
Gospel."    See  also  Rom.  xiv.  9-12. 

In  1  Cor.  iv.  3,  also,  Paul  remarks,  "  But  with  me  it  is  a 
very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  man's 
judgment;  (^  vho  avO^oiTtivrii  ^i^^'^as*  or  of  man's  day;)  yea, 
J  judge  not  mine  own  self."  He  here  contrasts  man's  day, 
which  is  now,  with  the  day  when  the  Lord  will  judge;  and 
man's  judgment  with  the  judgment  which  the  Lord  will  pro- 
nounce when  his  great  day  of  judgment  shall  arrive.  Crel- 
lius  (whom  I  have  opened  since  writing  the  above,)  takes  the 
same  view  of  the  passage.  "  The  apostle,"  says  he,  "  ap- 
pears to  allude  to  that  day  of  the  Lord  in  which  he  will  pro- 
nounce the  final  judgment;  and  to  oppose  the  human  day  or 
judgment  to  that  day  and  judgment." 

We  have  already  commented  on  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  51,  52, 
which  fixes  these  events  as  synchronical  with  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  sounding  of  the  last  trump,  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead :  and  for  the  same  reason  we  shall  pass  over 
2  Cor.  V.  10,  with  a  single  remark.  It  announces  that  all  are 
to  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ  to  receive  ac- 
cording to  their  deserts:  and  the  phrase  tov^  yae,  rtdvta?  r^ftaj 
^avs^uidTjvai  fist,  can  mean  no  other  than  a  universal  and  si- 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  371 

multaneous  arraigning,  at  which  time  each  one  {exaatoi)  is 
to  receive  his  reward.  Nothing  of  this  kind  has  yet  occurred, 
and  therefore  the  declaration  remains  yet  to  be  accomplished, 

Phil.  iii.  20,  21,  has  already  been  discussed  in  relation  to 
the  resurrection.  It  also  announces  that  at  the  great  day  of 
Jesus  Christ  (see  ch.  i.  6)  he  will  descend  from  heaven.  Of 
course,  therefore,  the  judgment  cannot,  any  more  than  the 
resurrection,  take  place  while  he  is  in  heaven,  as  our  author 
imagines. 

The  testimony  in  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  is  very 
full  and  explicit;  we  have  room,  however,  only  to  refer  to  it 
briefly  in  passing.  1  Thess.  iv.  16»  and  its  context,  has  been 
already  noticed  in  our  remarks  on  the  resurrection.  It  also 
announces  (see  context)  that  the  coming  of  the  Lord  to  judg- 
ment is  to  be  with  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  and  the  raising 
of  the  dead  in  Christ,  and  the  rapture  of  them  and  of  the 
living  saints.  These  are  the  preludes  to  the  judgment:  and 
they  are  all  yet  to  occur.  See  also  chap.  v.  2,  and  iii.  13; 
and  Col.  iii.  4. 

The  following  passage  needs  no  comment;  its  overwhelm- 
ing testimony  can  never  be  set  aside,  and  Professor  Bush  has 
thought  it  wisest  to  pass  it  in  silence.  Nothing  can  be  more 
full  or  decisive  of  the  point  under  discussion.  "And  to  you 
who  are  troubled,"  says  Paul,  "  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels, 
in  faming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 
God,  and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ: 
who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power;  when 
he  shall  come  to  he  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired 
in  all  them  that  believe  (because  our  testimony  among  you 
was  believed)  in  that  day.'''' 

Another  express  affirmation  that  Christ  will  come  visibly 
to  judgment  is  found  in  2  Thess.  ii.  8:  "And  then  shall  that 
wicked  be  revealed,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the 
spirit  of  his  mouth,  ancZ  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of 
his  coming:''^  irti^avsia  trj^  Tta^ovaia^,  brightness  of  his  ap- 
pearing. The  Greek  language  has  no  phrase  which  can 
more  fully  than  this  convey  the  idea  that  Christ  will  person- 
ally and  visibly  appear  at  the  time  here  referred  to;  and  this 
appearance  will  be  in  Judgment,  as  the  text  declares. 

But  the  whole  context  is  worthy  of  consideration  in  view 
of  Professor  Bush's  theory.     In  vs.  1-8,  Paul  assures  the 


372       THE  RESURRECTION  OP  THE  BODY 

Thessalonians  that  the  day  of  judgment  was  not  near  at 
hand.  This,  of  course,  cannot  refer  to  the  judgment  which 
takes  place  at  death;  for  such  an  idea  would  turn  the  whole 
passage  into  nonsense.  Nor  can  it  refer  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem:  for,  1.  Christ  did  not  visibly  and  personally 
appear  at  that  time.  2.  The  destruction  of  that  city  was 
near  at  hand  when  Paul  wrote,  and  actually  occurred  some 
twelve  or  fifteen  years  after  this.  3.  The  Thessalonians  had 
no  particular  interest  in  knowing  when  the  Jewish  city  should 
be  sacked.  4.  But  v.  3  shows  the  impossibility  of  referring 
this  passage  to  that  event.  "  That  day,"  says  Paul,  "  shall 
not  come  unless  there  be  a  falling  away  first.'''*  What  fall- 
ing away  is  here  referred  to?  Not  a  falling  away  of  Chris- 
tians before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  for  such  an  apos- 
tasy was  in  no  way  connected  with  that  event.  Nor  could 
it  mean  a  falling  away  of  the  Jews :  for  they  had  already 
sufficiently  fallen  away  to  insure  their  destruction;  Luke  xix. 
40,  41.  The  event  of  the  Saviour's  coming,  here  spoken  of, 
has  therefore  not  yet  occurred. 

The  passage  in  2  Tim.  iv.  1,  is  equally  explicit:  "I 
charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
shall  Judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing  and 
kingdom.^''  The  word  for  appearing  is  here  sTtt^avfta,  and 
is  never  employed  figuratively  in  the  New  Testament;  see 
ver.  8,  and  1  Tim.  vi.  14;  2  Tim.  i.  10;  2  Thess.  ii.  8;  Tit. 
ii.  13,  which  are  the  only  places  in  which  it  occurs.  Now 
Christ  has  not  yet  personally  appeared  to  judge  the  living 
and  the  dead,  and  therefore  the  event  here  referred  to  (as 
well  as  in  most  of  the  texts  just  named,)  is  yet  to  occur. 

The  next  passage  to  which  we  shall  refer  is  Heb.  ix.  27, 
28 :  "  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after 
this  the  judgment:  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the 
sins  of  many;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he 
appear  the  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation."  This 
passage  has  been  often  supposed  to  refer  only  to  the  judg- 
ment which  takes  place  upon  the  soul  immediately  after 
death,  as  in  the  case  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  in  Luke  xvi. 
This,  however,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  text.  For  oi^t'co 
xal  in  ver.  28,  is  plainly  illative,  and  refers  to  the  particles 
of  comparison  xa^'  baov  in  ver.  27.  The  argument  of  the 
apostle  is  that  "  as  it  is  appointed  to  men  once  (arta|)  to  die, 
and  after  this  (fistd  -tovifo)  it  is  appointed  that  they  should 
be  judged;  so  also  Christ  having  died  once  (arta|,)  will  ap- 


ASSERTED    AND    DEFENDED.  373 

pear  again  to  be  the  Judge.''''  The  judgment,  therefore,  to 
which  man  is  appointed  after  death, is  thejudgmentofthe  great 
day!  for  which  great  transaction  he  awaits  either  in  paradise 
or  hell:  and  this  judgment  is  to  take  place  when  Christ  the 
Judge  appears^  the  second  time  (personally  and  visibly  as  he 
appeared  the  first  time,)  not,  however,  as  a  sin-offering,  but 
to  the  saving  of  those  whom  he  had  redeemed  with  his  blood. 
See  also  1  Pet.  i.  7,  8,  and  1  Johniii.  2,  (compare  Ps.  xvii. 
15,)  and  1  John  ii.  28,  which  last  passage  clearly  implies 
that  some  will  be  "  ashamed  before  him  at  his  coming,*"  and 
who,  of  course,  will  receive  according  to  their  deserts. 

The  apostle  in  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  announces  that  the  fallen 
angels  are  to  be  judged  at  the  great  day:  "  For  if  God 
spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to 
hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  re- 
served unto  judgment,"  or  to  "  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day;^''  (see  Jude  6,  compare  1  Cor.  vi.  3,  and  Matt.  viii. 
29,  and  xxv.  41.)  This  protasis,  it  is  true,  has  no  gramma- 
tical apodosis;  but  a  reference  to  the  previous  verses  will 
show  that  Peter  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  "  If  God 
did  not  spare  angels,  much  less  will  he  spare  these  false 
tejchers.^^  But  there  can  be  no  mistaking  the  import  of 
rtagiSwxEv  ftj  x^laiv  trj^ov/xivov^  he  delivered  them  over  as 
those  who  {now)  are  kept  for  (or  until)  the  judgment — 
even  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  And,  as  we  have  re- 
marked already,  if  angels  are  thus  reserved  to  judgment, 
though  already  confined  in  hell,  the  same  is  doubtless  the 
case  with  sinners  who  die  impenitent :  and  if  there  is  to  be  a 
day  for  judging  sinful  angels,  there  is  also  to  be  a  day  for 
judging  sinful  man.  And  this  judgment  in  the  case  of  man, 
can  no  more  be  resolved  into  the  sentence  which  he  meets 
with  at  death,  than  the  future  judgment  of  angels  can  be 
resolved  into  the  sentence  which  was  formerly  passed  upon 
them  when  they  fell. 

The  argument  in  2  Pet.  iii.  3-17,  respecting  the  "  coming 
of  the  day  of  God,"  ver.  12,  and  of  the  "  coming"  of  the 
judge,  (ver.  4,)  which  the  skeptics  derided,  might  be  here 
discussed,  did  not  our  limits  absolutely  forbid.  It  is  a 
serious  consideration,  however,  that  Professor  Bush  virtually 
justifies  these  scoffers,  who  say,  "  Where  is  the  promise  of 
his  coming?"  and  who  seem  to  think  that  Christ  will  never 
come  to  judgment:  for,  as  if  in  answer  to  this  very  query 

32 


374  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

of  theirs,  his  theory  replies,  that  there  is  no  such  promise, 
and  that  Christ  will  not  thus  come  to  judgment,  &c. 

Omitting  other  passages,  we  proceed  to  Jude  14,  15; 
*' Behold  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints, 
to  execute  judgment  upon  all,^^  &c.  The  meaning  of  this 
passage  cannot  be  mistaken ;  for,  whatever  may  be  the  im- 
port of  saints  here,  it  is  evident  that  the  Lord  has  never  ap- 
peared thus  attended,  nor  has  he  ever  thus  judged  the  world, 
or  all  mankind.  The  prophecy,  therefore,  is  yet  to  be  ful- 
filled. 

The  term  saints  (ayt'aij)  has  occasioned  some  little  dis- 
cussion ;  and  Dr.  Dufiield,  in  his  late  work  on  ^'Prop/tecy," 
has  egregiously  misapprehended  its  import;  and  to  sustain 
himself,  would  even  translate  dyys^oj  by  messenger,  and 
refer  it  to  mankind  in  Matt.  xiii.  39,  &;c.  But  this  is  wholly 
inadmissible;  nor  did  his  argument  require  any  such  harsh 
dealing  with  the  Scriptures;  a  mode  of  dealing  which  must 
involve  the  whole  doctrine  of  angels  in  inextricable  confusion. 
This  mode  of  translation  is  a  discovery  claimed  by  the  edi- 
tors of  the  "  Improved  Version,''^  who  have  given  us  many 
ludicrous  specimens  of  it;  (see  e.  g.,  their  rendering  of  Gal. 
iii.  19;  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  and  v.  21;  Heb.  i.  4,  5,  7,  and  ii.  2, 
and  xii.  22;  1  Pet.  iii.  22;  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  &c.,  and  their  an- 
notations thereon,)  but  they  have,  as  yet,  left  Matt.  xiii.  39, 
49,  &c.,  undisturbed. 

We  have  already  shown  that  when  our  Saviour  appears 
in  judgment,  he  will  be  attended  with  all  the  holy  angels. 
Their  appearance  will  characterize  his  second  advent,  and, 
had  he  wished  it,  they  were  ready  to  attend  him  during  his 
first.  (Matt.  xxvi.  53,  compare  Heb.  i.  6.)  'Ayt'oj  is  a  fre- 
quent name  for  angels;  see  Matt.  xxv.  31;  Mark  viii.  30, 
38;  Luke  ix.  26;  Acts  x.  22;  Rev.  xiv.  10;  1  Thess.  iii. 
13;  (compare  2  Thess.  i.7;)  and  in  the  LXX.,  Dan.  iv.  14, 
20,  and  viii.  13;  Psalm  Ixxxix.  5;  and  Job  v.  1.  And  even 
in  our  text,  a  number  of  the  old  authorities  read  fiv^tdaiv 

aylmv    dyyl^cov,    and    fiv^idaiv    dyt'aij    dyy£7.wv,    and    jxv^idaiv 

dyyfxcoi/.  Now  Christ  has  never  yet  appeared  thus  attended 
to  judgment,  and,  therefore,  the  prophecy  is  still  unfulfilled. 
There  are  a  number  of  passages  in  Revelation,  as  for 
example  chap.  vi.  12-17,  and  xix.  11-16,  which  might  be 
made  the  subject  of  remark  in  this  connexion  ;  but  we  omit 
them,  in  order  to  refer  to  Rev.  xx.  11-15,  in  conclusion. 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  375 

The  passage  has  been  already  quoted  on  a  former  page,  and 
we  therefore  need  not  quote  it  here.  Professor  Bush,  as 
we  may  easily  suppose,  has  been  exceedingly  perplexed  by 
it;  but  a  few  observations  will  be  sufficient  to  show  how 
utterly  he  has  failed  in  his  attempt  to  set  aside  its  testimony. 
His  remark,  that  "  bodies"  are  not  here  spoken  of,  we 
have  already  considered ;  and  a  single  quotation  will  serve 
to  show  the  nature  of  his  attempts  at  evasion.  Says  he,  in 
relation  to  this  passage:  "The  true  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection affords  the  true  key  to  the  symbolic  problems  before 
us."  p.  317.  We  have  seen  what  his  "  true  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection"  is — that  man  rises  from  the  dead  at  death — 
and  the  fact  that  he  attempts  to  explain  this  passage  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  notion,  will,  of  itself,  evince  what  must 
be  the  nature  of  his  attempts  at  exposition.  And  it  is  while 
making  this  effort,  that  he  contradicts  himself  so  strangely, 
by  first  asserting  that  the  judgment  spoken  of  occurs  at  a 
stated  and  definite  period,  and  then  that  it  occurs  at  no 
such  period,  but  merely  takes  place  at  death.  He  asserts, 
that  "  the  judgment  here  described  is  not  a  visible  judg- 
ment in  the  natural  sphere,"  and,  of  course,  tlie  great  white 
throne,  and  the  heavens  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  are  not 
"  visible  in  the  natural  sphere."  The  sea  giving  up  its  dead 
"  occurs,"  says  he,  "  prior  to  the  act  of  adjudication  just 
mentioned  above,"  i.  e.,  prior  to  this  judgment  of  the  dead, 
which  he  speaks  of:  and,  of  course,  if  this  "  act  of  adjudi- 
cation" is  the  one  which  takes  place  at  death,  then  the  sea 
must  have  given  up  her  dead  before  the  first  of  Adam's  race 
died.  But  to  pursue  this  subject  would  be  to  tritle  with  the 
patience  of  the  reader.  I  may  remark,  however,  that  the 
reason  why  the  sea  is  here  specifically  mentioned  as  giving 
up  its  dead,  appears  to  be,  because,  as  the  resurrection  of 
all  who  are  in  their  graves,  or  in  the  dust  of  the  earth, 
had  been  spoken  of  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration,  the  resur- 
rection of  those  in  the  sea  is  here  expressly  mentioned, 
that  all  may  perceive  that  the  resurrection  of  the  whole 
human  family  will  be  complete,  and  that  even  the  disso- 
lution of  the  body  which  takes  place  in  the  waiers,,  will 
present  no  impediment  in  the  way  of  him  who  is  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life.  So  that  even  though  through  Adam 
all  die,  yet  through  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive. 


376  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 


CONCLUSION. 

Thus  I  have  completed  my  investigation  of  the  views  of 
the  resurrection  and  judgment  asserted  by  Professor  Bush, 
in  common  with  Swedenborgians  and  others.  I  have  care- 
fully examined  every  position  which  he  has  advanced,  and 
every  attempt  which  he  has  made  to  impugn  the  received 
doctrine,  or  to  sustain  his  own.  He  has  in  the  last  chapters 
of  his  book  attempted  to  criticise  at  great  length  Acts  iii.  19- 
21,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28;  but  as  these  passages  have  but 
an  incidental  reference  to  the  main  issue,  I  shall  not  follow 
him  therein.  I  am  not  sorry  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
doing  so;  for  in  his  attempts  to  criticise  them,  he  has  fallen 
into  not  a  few  grievous  philological  errors,  affecting,  too, 
the  very  core  of  his  exposition;  and  it  would  afford  me  no 
pleasure  to  expose  them,  as  they  do  not  seriously  affect  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 

Yet  crude  and  inconsistent  with  scarce  a  parallel,  as  are 
the  Professor's  views,  he  cannot,  without  the  highest  degree 
of  self-complacency,  survey  his  efJbrts  to  establish  them.  In 
the  conclusion  of  his  remarks  on  the  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment, he  exclaims,  with  no  little  transport — "  What  then 
becomes  of  the  scriptural  evidence  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  1  Does  it  not  evaporate  in  the  crucible  of  logical 
and  philological  deduction?  And  is  it  not  inevitable  that 
a  great  change  must  come  over  our  estimate  of  the  doctrine, 
viewed  as  a  disclosure  of  holy  writ?  Can  it  hereafter  pre- 
sent the  same  aspect  to  the  refecting  mind  as  formerly^ 
when  conceived  to  involve  the  averment  of  the  requickening 
of  the  inhumed  relics  of  the  corporeal  structure?  Especially, 
are  we  not  presented  with  a  neiv  and  all-important  view  of 
the  central  fact,  our  Saviour''s  resurrection?  Can  the 
evidence  be  resisted  ?" — p.  347.  I  have  sometimes  half 
doubted  whether  the  Professor  could  have  been  really  serious 
when  he  wrote  this — for  of  all  things  in  the  world  it  appears 
the  most  unaccountably  strange  that  a  man  should  soberly 
expect  to  effect  an  entire  revolution  in  the  views  entertained 
by  the  Christian  church  on  the  most  momentous  subjects,  by 
means  of  such  efforts  as  this  of  Professor  Bush.     He  has 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  377 

offered  not  a  single  objection  to  the  doctrine  he  opposes,  but 
has  been  a  thousand  times  refuted  before  he  was  born;  not  a 
new  fact  or  principle  has  he  adduced  from  science  or  philo- 
sophy; not  a  single  text  has  he  been  able  to  produce  which 
in  any  way  countenances  his  theory ;  and  not  only  this,  but 
his  views  are  crude  and  unformed  on  many  of  the  most  im- 
portant points  which  he  has  attempted  to  discuss,  and  in 
multitudes  of  places  they  are  totally  and  irreconcilably  dis- 
cordant and  subversive  of  each  other ;  and  to  crown  all, 
they  are  wholly  destitute  even  of  the  attraction  of  novelty, 
as  we  have  shown  at  the  commencement  of  this  treatise : 
and  yet,  notwithstanding  all  this,  our  author  announces  that 
he  seriously  expects  the  Christian  church  will,  by  virtue  of 
what  he  has  presented,  abandon  the  views  which  she  has 
ever  entertained,  and  the  truth  of  which  her  sons  have  de- 
monstrated ten  thousand  times  twice  told,  and  around  which 
cluster  her  dearest  hopes  for  time  and  eternity;  and  receive 
as  truth  some  of  the  wildest  chimeras  which  ever  entered  the 
mind  of  man ! 

The  work  of  Professor  Bush  has  excited  much  interest  in 
many  minds,  particularly  the  young  and  inquiring ;  and  no 
small  degree  of  apprehension  among  some  of  the  friends  of 
evangelical  religion.  Yet  I  cannot  doubt  he  will  deeply  re- 
gret ever  having  written  it.  His  bold  sanction  of  the  neo- 
logical  principles  of  hermeneutics,  will  be  hailed  with  joy  by 
those  in  our  country  who  are  endeavouring  to  clothe  them- 
selves in  the  cast-off  garments  of  the  German  school  of 
Semler;  his  effort  to  explain  away  the  doctrine  of  a  judg- 
ment to  come,  will  find  favour  among  our  Universalists;  and 
the  Swedenborgians,  Shakers  and  Rationalists  will  rejoice  in 
the  support  and  countenance  of  one  who,  with  no  small 
amount  of  reputation  as  a  biblical  expositor,  has  come  to  their 
assistance  with  such  a  parade  of  learning  and  science:  but 
the  ark  of  God  will  still  remain  unshaken.  In  this  country, 
truth  cannot  suffer  in  its  conflict  with  error. 

Professor  Bush  has,  in  this  discussion,  spoken  plainly,  and, 
occasionally,  with  no  little  contempt  of  the  doctrines  he  im- 
pugns. I  too  have  spoken  plainly,  under  the  firm  persuasion 
that  "these  are  not  the  times  to  concede  any  thing  either  to 
timid  integrity  among  ourselves,  or  fluctuating  doubts  and 
scruples  among  our  milder  opponents.  It  is  necessary  that 
the  truth  should  be  spoken,  not  only  out,  but  aloud."*     Of 

»  British  Critic  for  January,  1800. 


378        THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY 

the  author  himself,  I  have  endeavoured  to  speak,  as  I  truly 
feel,  kindly;  but  such  errors  as  he  has  advocated  cannot  be 
treated  in  a  way  which  would  lead  the  reader  to  infer  that 
the  writer  deemed  them  to  be  at  best  but  trivial,  without  a 
clear  compromise  of  fundamental  truth.  I  am  not  the  one 
who  can,  without  the  utterance  of  stern  rebuke,  permit  a 
brother  (however  highly  valued)  to  charge  the  apostles  with 
mistake,  and  the  Saviour  with  direct  connivance  at  gross  and 
grievous  errors.  The  man  who  asserts  these  things  under 
whatever  pretence,  has  openly  taken  sides  with  the  declared 
enemies  of  Christ  and  his  religion.  Still,  he  may  not  design 
it  so,  and  the  error  may  be  one  of  the  head  and  not  of  the 
heart.  But  this  in  no  way  cancels  our  obligations  to  assert, 
plainly  and  fearlessly,  the  radical  difference  between  truth 
and  error.  Nor  can  one  particle  of  this  difference  be  com- 
promised, should  ten  thousand  such  men  as  Professor  Bush 
assume  the  position  which  he  has  taken.  I  should  siill  say, 
amicus  Socrates,  amicus  Plato,  sed  magis  amica  Veritas,  and 
should  feel  bound  to  declare  that  they  had  clearly  made 
a  compromise  with  the  enemy.  I  am  aware  that  this  is 
"bigotry"  in  our  modern  vocabulary,  nor  am  I  unwilling 
that  on  such  grounds  it  should  be  so  regarded. 

I  can  truly  say  (if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  speaking  so 
often  in  the  first  person,)  that  I  always  rejoice  when  any  doc- 
trine of  revelation  becomes  the  subject  of  more  than  special 
attention  and  inquiry,  whether  it  be  by  means  of  believer, 
errorist,  or  infidel.  Let  these  doctrines  be  "  interrogated  " — 
and  the  severer  the  scrutiny  the  better;  but  let  the  principles 
upon  which  this  is  attempted  be  reasonable  and  philosophi- 
cal. Revelation  cannot  be  injured  thereby.  But  the  man 
who  will  attempt  such  a  scrutiny  on  false  principles,  or  on 
those  which  are  wholly  arbitrary,  or  even  preposterous  in 
their  application  to  any  other  subject,  had  better  present  his 
lucubrations  to  other  readers  than  the  people  of  our  Ameri- 
can republic,  if  he  calculates  upon  either  profit  or  lasting 
fame.  Error  may  appear  to  triumph  for  a  season  on  Ameri- 
can soil,  but  that  moment  her  triumph  has  appeared  to  be 
the  proudest,  has  ever  proved  to  be  the  signal  for  her  over- 
throw. 

The  contemplation  of  the  momentous  themes  which  form 
the  subject  of  this  discourse,  cannot  but  force  upon  the  mind 
the  impressive  reflection  that  both  writer  and  reader  are 
rapidly  passing  onward  to  the  world  where  the  character 


ASSERTED  AND  DEFENDED.  379 

we  have  formed  in  our  present  slate  will  receive  the  innpress 
of  eternal  immutability.  May  we  be  prepared  for  the  scenes 
which  will  then  open  upon  our  view,  and  for  that  awful  as- 
size to  which  reference  has  been  made  so  frequently  on 
the  preceding  pages,  and  at  which  ice  are  not  to  be  mere 
spectators;  but  where  our  principles  and  feelings  and  actions 
must  all  undergo  the  severest  scrutiny!  And  Oh,  thou  glo- 
rious Redeemer,  who  art  ordained  to  be  the  Judge  of  the 
living  and  the  dead!  mercifully  pardon  the  imperfections 
of  this  book,  which  was  written  for  the  promotion  of  thy 
glory;  and  grant  that  its  perusal  may  be  attended  with  thy 
blessing  in  leading  souls  to  prepare  for  thy  coming!  Look 
down  upon  thy  Zion  in  this  land,  (for  she  is  thy  blood-pur- 
chased possession!)  and  save  her  from  those  errors  which 
have  retarded  thy  triumph,  and  desolated  thy  inheritance  in 
other  lands.  Let  her  still  prosper  under  thy  protecting  and 
nurturing  hand;  and  may  thy  people  become  more  like  thee, 
and  possess  more  sympathy  with  thee  in  thine  efforts  to 
recover  this  apostate  world  to  thy  sway. 


THE  END. 


PERKINS    &   PURVES, 

No.  142  Chestnut  Street, 
PHILADELPHIA, 

Publish  the  following  new  and  valuable  worh: 

PARISH  PSALMODY. 

A  collection  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  for  Public  Worship.  This 
book  is  the  result  of  years  of  uninterrupted  labour.  It  has  been 
prepared  by  a  clergyman  admirably  qualified  for  the  task,  and  with 
unusual  facilities  afforded  him  to  make  the  work  of  the  very  best 
character. 

The  publishers  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  clergymen  and 
others  to  the  following  characteristics  of  the  Parish  Psalmody. 

I.  It  contains  Dr.  Watts'  versification  of  the  Psalms,  entire  and 
unaltered^  except  in  a  few  instances  of  allusion  to  the  British  nation 
and  government.  Versifications  by  Dwight,  Montgomery,  and  others 
of  the  Psalms  omitted  by  Dr.  Watts',  and  some  choice  versifications 
of  other  Psalms,  have  been  inserted,  but  in  all  such  instances  the 
name  of  the  author  is  given  at  the  close  of  the  piece. 

II.  The  Parish  Psalmody  contains  also  a  selection  of  Hymns, 
nearly  seven  hundred  in  number,  which,  (according  to  the  numerous 
testimonials  above  referred  to,)  will  be  found  copious,  adapted  to  a 
great  variety  of  topics  and  occasions,  and  suited  to  the  evangelical  and 
active  spirit  of  the  age.  Nearly  two  hundred  of  Dr.  Watts'  hymns, 
embracing,  it  is  supposed,  all  that  are  used  in  public  worship,  will 
be  found  in  this  volume.  The  standard  productions  of  Doddridge, 
Cowper,  Newton,  Mrs.  Steele,  and  others,  have  been  scrupulously 
retained. 

III.  The  classification  of  subjects  is  more  minute  than  usual,  and 
is  methodical,  easy,  and  corresponding  with  the  best  arrangement  of 
systematic  theology. 

In  the  running  title  over  the  left-hand  page  is  found  the  general 
subject,  as,  for  instance,  "Christ,"  while  over  the  right-hand  page  is 
found  the  subdivision  of  this  general  subject,  as  "Advent,"  "Atone- 
ment," "Resurrection,"  "Ascension,"  "  Intercession,"  «fec. 

A  complete  table  of  the  "Classification  of  Hymns"  is  given.  The 
"  Index  of  Subjects,"  and  that  of  "  Passages  of  Scriptures  alluded  to 
in  the  Hymns,"  is  also  very  full. 

In  the  size  designed  for  the  pulpit,  a  table  of  the  "  First  lines  of 
every  Stanza"  in  the  book  is  given,  so  that  the  recollection  of  the  first 
line  of  any  stanza  of  any  Psalm  or  Hymn  in  the  book,  the  piece  to 

33 


which  it  bclong's  may  be  readily  found.  The  copiousness  of  the 
index  and  tables  has  been  often  mentioned  by  many  of  the  pastors 
who  are  using  the  book,  in  different  sections  of  the  country,  as  afford- 
jng  them  greater  facihties  than  any  other  book  they  have  ever  seen. 

IV.  In  addition  to  its  other  excellencies,  there  is  included  in  the 
volume  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the 
Shorter  Catechism,  but  congregations  choosing  to  dispense  with  these 
can  be  supplied  with  copies  in  which  they  are  omitted. 

Pastors  and  churches  are  earnestly  desired  to  examine  the  Parish 
Psalmody  before  adopting  any  other  book.  It  is  published  in  the 
three  sizes,  in  .S2mo.,  18mo.,  and  12mo.,  all  in  very  clear,  new  type, 
and  will  be  sold  very  low  to  churches. 

*^*  We  have  appended  to  the  Parish  Psalmody  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  Shorter  Catechism.  Con- 
gregations  choosing  to  dispense  with  these,  can  be  supplied  with 
copies  in  which  they  are  omitted. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

BY   THE    SYNOD    OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 

Resolved,  That  the  Parish  Psalmody,  which  has  already  been 
adopted  extensively  by  the  churches  in  our  connexion,  is  a  Book  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns  of  great  excellence.  The  collection  is  large, 
various,  and  evangelical,  replete  with  lyric  beauty,  and  admirably 
adapted  to  the  wants  and  spirit  of  the  age.  Embracing  also  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Shorter  Catechism,  it  supplies  a  desideratum, 
which  has  been  wanting  heretofore  in  the  Hymn  Books  in  use  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  its  adoption,  as  speedily  as  possible, 
by  all  the  churches  in  our  care. 

BY    THE    SYNOD    OF   WESTERN    PENNSYLVANIA. 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  its  adoption,  (Parish  Psalmody) 
by  all  the  churches 'under  our  care. 

BY   THE    PRESBYTERY   OF   PITTSBURGH,    PA. 

Resolved,  That  the  Parish  Psalmody,  which  has  been  adopted  by 
two  of  our  churches,  is  a  collection  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  great 
excellence;  and  we  recommend  its  use  in  all  the  churches  under  our 
care. 

Resolved,  That  we  consider  it  a  strong  recommendation  of  the 
Parish  Psalmody,  that  appended  to  it,  are  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  Shorter  Catechism ;  thus  giving  a  wide  circulation  to  those 
venerated  standards  of  Presbyterianism,  and  making  all  our  members 
familiar  with  the  system  of  doctrine,  held  and  taught  in  our  church. 

Resolved,  That  we  overture  the  Synod  to  take  action  on  this  sub- 
ject, so  that  we  may,  if  possible,  secure  uniformity  of  Psalmody 
throughout  the  churches. 

Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Third  Presbytery,  Philadelphia. 

The  committee  appointed  to  examine  the  "Parish  Psalmody," 
published  by  Messrs,  Perkins  &  Purves,  of  Philadelphia,  respectfully 
report, 


That  they  have  given  due  attention  to  the  book,  and  find  it  to  pois. 
sess  more  excellencies,  and  fewer  defects,  than  usually  attach  to 
works  of  this  character. 

It  contains  the  Psalms  of  Dr.  Watts  entire  from  the  original  copy, 
except  in  a  few  instances  of  national  allusion,  together  with  a  versifi- 
cation of  the  Psalms  of  David  which  he  omitted,  by  other  and  approved 
authors. 

Most  of  the  Hymns  of  Watts  also  are  given  with  sparing  and  judi- 
cious alterations^  To  these  are  added  about  five  hundred  of  the  most 
choice  hymns  in  the  English  language,  adapted  to  every  variety  of 
occasion. 

The  index  of  subjects  is  full  and  well  arranged,  and  one  also  of 
Scripture  passages  on  which  the  hymns  are  founded,  is  added. 

The  book  is  truly  Presbyterian  in  its  character,  containing  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Shorter  Catechism.  The  execution  of  the  work 
is  admirable,  both  for  appearance  and  durability. 

They  would  recommend  the  following  resolution  for  adoption: — 

Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  recommend  to  the  churches  under 
its  care  the  "  Parish  Psalmody,"  published  by  Messrs.  Perkins  &, 
Purves,  of  Philadelphia,  as  admirably  adapted  to  interest  and  edify 
our  churches  and  congregations,  in  this  department  of  public  worship. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery, 
Attest,  Robert  Adair,  Stated  Clerk, 

,  Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Bethlehem. 

Resolved,  That  we  highly  approve  the  collection  of  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  entitled  "Parish  Psalmody,"  published  by  Perkins  &  Purves, 
and  regard  it  as  decidedly  the  most  judicious  selection  with  which 
we  are  acquainted.  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Clerk. 

From  the  New  York  Evangelist. 

This  is  a  work  evidently  prepared  with  care,  and  by  one  who  is  a 
theologian  and  a  man  of  taste,  though  we  are  not  informed  who  he  is. 
It  has  some  distinguishing  features,  which  will  probably  commend  it 
to  the  favour  of  many  of  the  churches.     ******* 

The  alterations  and  abridgments  of  those  hymns  of  Watts  which 
are  given,  are  sparingly  but  judiciously  and  tastefully  made.  They 
are  by  no  means  too  frequent;  in  our  opinion,  they  might  have  been 
more  frequent,  without  injury  to  the  cause  of  good  psalmody.  The 
selection  from  other  authors  is  copious,  varied,  and  in  good  taste. 
The  whole  number  of  hymns  is  little  less  than  seven  hundred ;  and 
those  adapted  to  special  occasions  and  subjects  are  quite  as  numerous 
as  in  any  collection  we  are  acquainted  with.  The  classification  of 
subjects  is  more  minute  than  usual,  and  is  methodical,  easy,  and  cor- 
responding with  the  best  arrangement  of  systematic  theology.  Some 
may  think  it  carried  to  far,  but  it  gives  the  work  an  appearance  of 
symmetry  and  order  which  is  pleasing  and  desirable. 

It  is  very  iiandsomely  printed,  with  fair,  open  type,  and  fine  paper 
— has  convenient  indexes  of  subjects,  first  lines,  &.c.,  is  well  bound, 
and  sold  at  a  moderate  price.  We  doubt  not  it  will  strike  a  large 
portion  of  the  religious  public  with  favour,  and  find  its  way  to  the 
acceptable  use  of  many  churches. 


The  followingr  recommendation  has  been  received  from  several  of  the 
Pastors  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  who  have  adopted  the  Parish 
Psalmody: 

The  undersigned  have  introduced  into  their  respective  churches  the 
"Parish  Psalmody,"  recently  published  by  Perkins  &.  Purves,  of  this 
city,  and  which  has  received  the  approval  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies.  The  following  are  some 
of  its  excellencies,  viz : 

1.  It  contains  Dr.  Watts's  versification  of  the  Psalms,  entire:  and 
the  Hymns  by  the  same  author  are  retained,  with  sparing  and  judi- 
cious alterations.  To  the  Hymns  by  Dr.  Watts  are  added  about  five 
hundred  of  the  best  in  the  English  language. 

2.  The  classification  and  the  index  of  subjects  are  full  and  well  ar- 
ranged: and  an  index  of  Scripture  passages,  upon  which  the  hymns 
are  founded;  and  (in  the  large  size)  an  index  of  the  first  line  of  every 
stanza,  give  it  a  completeness  which  is  seldom  to  be  met  with  in  simi- 
lar  collections. 

3.  It  includes  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Shorter  Catechism 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  gives  the  book  much  additional 
value. 

We  cordially  recommend  the  "  Parish  Psalmody"  to  our  brethren 
in  the  ministry  and  the  churches  in  our  connexion,  for  their  adoption, 
believing  it  to  be  the  best  collection  of  Psalmody  now  in  use. 

John  L.  Grant, 
Pastor  of  the  Uth  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila. 

Charles  Brown, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  Fair  mount,  Phila. 

Ezra  Stiles  Ely,  D.  D. 
Pastor  Elect  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  N.  L.  Phila. 

Robert  Adair, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  South wark,  Phila. 

William  Ramsey, 
Minister  of  Cedar  street  Presb.  Church,  Phila. 

M.  La  Rue  P.  Thompson, 
Pastor  of  the  5th  Presbyterian  Church,  Phila. 

George  Chandler, 
Pastor  of  1st  Presb.  Church,  Kensington,  Phila. 

From  the  New  York  Observer. 

We  have  examined  this  book  with  some  attention,  and  we  are 
pleased  with  all  that  we  have  yet  seen  in  it ;  the  selection  appears  to 
be  made  with  taste,  and  the  variety  is  so  great  that  songs  suitable 
for  any  occasion,  and  adapted  to  almost  any  subject,  may  be  readily 
found. 

Another  feature  we  admire  much  in  this  book — the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  added 
in  an  appendix.  The  propriety  and  usefulness  of  this  addition  will 
be  very  apparent.  For  other  than  Presbyterian  churches,  which  adopt 
his  book,  an  edition  is  published  without  the  appendix. 


l^/fi 


rn-cdt^iy .  lf(,,W' 


4 


^ 


rf 


/W^^« 


..  /X^-. 


YB  72503 


A3 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


